Grimsley v. Rodrequez

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Grimsley v. Rodrequez. Read the opinion of the Court — 113 F.3d 1246
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided May 8, 1997·No. 96-3339·Unpublished

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

MAY 8 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

ARNOLD W. GRIMSLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 96-3339 v. D. Kansas RUDY RODREQUEZ, Unit Team (D.C. No. 96-CV-3342) Manager, Reno County; ROBERT D. HANNIGAN, Warden, Reno County; CARL CUSINBERRY, Assistant Warden, Hutchinson Correctional Facility; SHERIFF OF MCPHERSON COUNTY,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. Arnold W. Grimsley appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action against certain employees of the Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) in

Hutchinson, Kansas, where he is an inmate. He contends that the district court should

have heard his case on the merits instead of dismissing it for failure to exhaust his

administrative remedies.

As the district court correctly noted, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a), as amended by the

Prison Litigation Reform Act, requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative

remedies before they can bring a § 1983 action in federal court. Although Grimsley

concedes that he did not exhaust his remedies, he contends that it was improper to dismiss

his case on such a technicality. The requirement for exhaustion is not just a technicality.

It is the law which federal courts are required to follow. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grimsley v. Rodrequez, (10th Cir. 1997).

Grimsley v. Rodrequez (Grimsley v. Rodrequez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a)