Seegars v. Ward

Tenth Circuit

Seegars v. Ward

64 F. App'x 188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 2003

Docket03-6032

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 F. App'x 188 (Seegars v. Ward) 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

Seegars v. Ward, 64 F. App'x 188 (10th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not aid in the disposition of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Marvin Seegars, a prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that amendments to Oklahoma statutes have delayed his consideration for parole, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Mr. Seegars sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction directing prison officials to promulgate rules and regulations regarding parole procedures. In his complaint, Mr. Seegars acknowledged that he had not pursued administrative remedies, but he contended that to do so would be futile.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, reasoning that Mr. Seegars had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), contains an exhaustion requirement and that “courts ’ cannot excuse the exhaustion of administrative remedies even if exhaustion would arguably be futile.” Rec. doc. 21, at 3 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Jan. 13, 2003) (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) and Jemigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir.2002)).

We agree with this analysis. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate’s report and recommendation and the district court’s order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Seegars’ complaint without prejudice.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

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

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not aid in the disposition of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Marvin Seegars, a prisoner in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that amendments to Oklahoma statutes have delayed his consideration for parole, thereby violating the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Mr. Seegars sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction directing prison officials to promulgate rules and regulations regarding parole procedures. In his complaint, Mr. Seegars acknowledged that he had not pursued administrative remedies, but he contended that to do so would be futile.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, reasoning that Mr. Seegars had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court noted that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), contains an exhaustion requirement and that “courts ’ cannot excuse the exhaustion of administrative remedies even if exhaustion would arguably be futile.” Rec. doc. 21, at 3 (Dist. Ct. Order, filed Jan. 13, 2003) (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) and Jemigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir.2002)).

We agree with this analysis. Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate’s report and recommendation and the district court’s order, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Seegars’ complaint without prejudice.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 F. App'x 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seegars-v-ward-ca10-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack