Strope v. McKune

227 F. App'x 738

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 9, 2007
• Docket: 05-3344
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Lee Strope, a state inmate appearing pro se, appealed the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against State corrections personnel, without prejudice, and the denial of his motion to reconsider. The district court’s dismissal was predicated on a “total exhaustion” requirement for § 1983 suits involving prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1189-90 (10th Cir.2004), overruled by Jones v. Bock, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.2003), overruled by Jones v. Bock, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007); see also Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (10th Cir.2007) (noting that Jones v. Bock overruled Ross and Steele); Aquilar-Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir.2007) (same). We affirmed, noting that it appeared that Mr. Strope had not exhausted all of his claims when he filed his complaint and that evidence concerning his attempts to exhaust came too late given summary judgment proceedings. Strope v. McKune, No. 05-344, 2006 WL 246138, at *1, — Fed.Appx. -, - (10th Cir.Feb.2, 2006), vacated — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1215, 167 L.Ed.2d 40 (2007). The Supreme Court vacated our judgment for reconsideration in light of Jones v. Bock and we recalled our mandate. We now reverse the district court’s orders dismissing and denying reconsideration and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Jones v. Bock.

We remind Mr. Strope that he must continue to make partial payments until the entirety of his appellate filing fee balance is paid.

REVERSED. The district court’s orders dismissing the action and denying reconsideration are VACATED, and the case is REMANDED, for proceedings consistent with this Order and Judgment.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.