Muhammad v. Berry

Tenth Circuit

Muhammad v. Berry

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2006

Docket06-7021

StatusPublished

This text of Muhammad v. Berry (Muhammad v. Berry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Muhammad v. Berry, (10th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 4, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court

A B ’D U LLA H L. R . M U H A M M A D ,

Plaintiff-A ppellant, v. No. 06-7021 ROBERT BERRY, Unit M anager; ( D .C . N o . C I V - 0 4 - 4 6 7 - F H S ) JOH N TH OM AS; M ATT KNIGH T; (E. D . O klahoma) M IKE PRUITT, Unit M anager; B ILL W H ITE, Sargent; M IK E M ULLIN, W arden; and BOBBY B O O N E , D eputy D irector, D O C ,

D efendants-A ppellees.

ORDER AND JUDGM ENT*

B e f o r e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , a n d O ’ B R I E N , C i r c u it J u d g e s .

A f te r e x a m i n i n g t h e b r i e f s a n d a p p e l l a te r e c o rd , t h i s p a n e l h a s

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in

t h e d e t e r m in a t i o n o f t h i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h C ir . R .

* T h i s o r d e r a n d ju d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t, e x c e p t u n d e r t h e d o c t r in e s o f l a w o f t h e c a s e , r e s j u d i c a t a , a n d c o l la t e r a l e s t o p p e l . T h e c o u r t g e n e ra ll y d i s f a v o rs t h e c it a ti o n o f o r d e r s a n d ju d g m e n ts ; n e v e rt h e le s s , a n o r d e r a n d j u d g m e n t m a y b e c i te d u n d e r t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i ti o n s o f 1 0 t h C i r. R . 36.3. 3 4 . 1 ( G ) . T h e c a s e is , th e re f o re , o r d e r e d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t.

P e t i t i o n e r A b ’ d u l l a h L a m a r R a s h id M u h a m m a d , a p r i s o n e r i n c u s t o d y

o f th e S t a te o f O k l a h o m a p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , a p p e a l s t h e d is m i s s a l o f h is 4 2

U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 c iv i l r i g h t s a c ti o n . W e e x e r c is e ju r i s d i c ti o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8

U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f ir m .

M r . M u h a m m a d f il e d s u i t w i t h a f e l l o w p r i s o n e r , M i c h a e l H o r t o n , o n

O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , a ll e g in g : 1 ) d e f e n d a n ts v i o l a te d th e ir E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t

r i g h t s b y s u b j e c ti n g t h e m t o c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t, d e m o n s t r a ti n g

deliberate indifference to their safety needs, and endangering their lives by

h o u s i n g t h e m w i t h o t h e r i n m a te s w h o w e r e a ll e g e d ly m e m b e r s o f th e

U n i v e r s a l A r ya n B r o t h e r h o o d ( “ U A B ” ) a n d t h e I n d i a n B r o t h e r h o o d ( “ I B H ” ) ;

2) defendants violated their First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth

A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s b y p l a c in g t h e m i n d i s c ip l i n a r y s e g r e g a ti o n ; a n d 3 )

d e f e n d a n ts v i o l a te d th e ir F i r s t , F o u r t h , E i g h t h , a n d F o u r t e e n th A m e n d m e n t

rights by retaliating against plaintiffs. The defendants filed a M otion to

D i s m i s s / M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t, w h i c h th e c o u rt t r e a te d a s a m o t i o n

f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t s in c e it c o n s id e r e d m a tte r s o u ts id e th e c o u r t r e c o r d .

T h e d is t r i c t c o u r t g r a n te d th e d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o t i o n a n d d is m i s s e d th e c a s e f o r

f a il u r e to e x h a u s t a d m i n i s t r a ti v e r e m e d i e s p u r s u a n t t o t h e P r i s o n L i t i g a ti o n

R e f o r m A c t. O n ly M r. M u h a m m a d a p p e a ls .

W e r e v ie w d e n o v o a d is m i s s a l f o r f a il u r e to e x h a u s t a d m i n i s t r a ti v e

-2- r e m e d i e s . J e r n i g a n v . S t u c h e ll , 3 0 4 F . 3 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 2 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 )

( c it a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . T h e P r is o n L i t i g a t io n R e f o r m A c t ( “ P L R A ” ) p r o v i d e s :

“ N o a c ti o n s h a ll b e b r o u g h t w i t h r e s p e c t t o p r i s o n c o n d it i o n s u n d e r s e c ti o n

1 9 8 3 o f th i s t i t l e , o r a n y o t h e r F e d e r a l l a w , b y a p r i s o n e r c o n f in e d in a n y

j a il , p r i s o n , o r o t h e r c o r r e c ti o n a l f a c i l i t y u n t i l s u c h a d m i n i s t r a ti v e r e m e d i e s

a s a r e a v a i l a b le a re e x h a u s t e d .” 4 2 U .S . C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) . “ A n i n m a te w h o

b e g in s t h e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s b u t d o e s n o t c o m p l e te it i s b a r r e d f r o m

pursuing a § 1983 claim under PLRA for failure to exhaust his

a d m i n i s t r a ti v e r e m e d i e s .” J e r n i g a n , 3 0 4 F . 3 d a t 1 0 3 2 . S i m i l a r l y, a p r i s o n e r

does not exhaust his administrative remedies w hen he fails to properly

c o m p l e te th e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s o r c o r r e c t d e f ic ie n c ie s i n h i s g r i e v a n c e s . I d .

W e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e c o m p l e te r e c o r d o n a p p e a l a n d M r .

M u h a m m a d ’ s f i li n g s w i th t h i s c o u r t a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t th e d i s tr ic t c o u r t

p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d M r . M u h a m m a d ’ s c la im f o r f a ilu r e to e x h a u s t . A l t h o u g h

M r . M u h a m m a d f il e d s e v e ra l w r i t t e n c o m p l a in t s r e la ti n g t o h i s c la im s , h e

f a il e d to p r o p e r l y f o ll o w t h e p r i s o n ’ s g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u re a n d to c o r r e c t

d e f ic ie n c ie s i n h i s g r i e v a n c e s , e v e n w h e n n o ti f ie d b y p r i s o n s t a f f a n d g iv e n

an opportunity to cure.

The inmate grievance process requires an inmate to attem pt to

i n f o r m a ll y r e s o l v e a n is s u e b e f o r e f il i n g a w r i t t e n c o m p l a in t . I f in f o r m a l

r e s o l u t i o n i s u n s u c c e s s f u l, a n in m a te m a y f il e a R e q u e s t t o S t a f f ( “ R T S ” )

-3- form to the appropriate staff member detailing his complaint. If an inmate

i s d i s s a ti s f ie d w i t h t h e r e s p o n s e to t h e R T S , h e m a y f il e a n In m a te /O f f e n d e r

G r i e v a n c e R e p o r t F o r m ( “ g r i e v a n c e ” ), b u t h e m u s t a tt a c h a c o p y o f th e

p r e v i o u s ly s u b m i t t e d R T S t o t h e g r ie v a n c e . I f th e i n m a t e n e v e r r e c e i v e s a

r e s p o n s e to t h e R T S , t h e in m a te m a y f il e a g ri e v a n c e n o ti n g a n d p r o v i d i n g

e v id e n c e o f th e ig n o r e d R T S . I f a g r i e v a n c e is n o t r e s p o n d e d to o r r e s o l v e d

t o a n in m a te ’ s s a ti s f a c t i o n , t h e in m a te m a y f il e a n a p p e a l t o t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w a u t h o r i t y. T h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w p r o c e s s i s

e x h a u s t e d o n l y a f t e r th e i n m a t e h a s t a k e n a l l t h e s e s t e p s .

M r . M u h a m m a d f il e d s e v e ra l g r i e v a n c e s t h a t w e r e r e tu r n e d to h i m f o r

f a il u r e to a tt a c h a p r e v io u s l y s u b m i t t e d R T S . T h e re tu r n e d g r i e v a n c e s n o t e d

t h e d e f i c ie n c y a n d d ir e c te d M r . M u h a m m a d to t h e p o li c y o u t l i n i n g

a p p r o p r i a te g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u re . M r . M u h a m m a d a rg u e s o n a p p e a l t h a t h e

c o u l d n o t a t t a c h th e r e q u i r e d m a t e r i a l s b e c a u s e s t a f f i g n o r e d t h e s e R T S

c o m p l a in t s . H o w e v e r, M r .

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