Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Walters v. Tugle, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cortez Walters' §1983 civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Walters received a misconduct conviction for a positive drug test in 2000 but did not timely appeal it through the prison's administrative process. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that Walters properly used the grievance process to raise his constitutional claims. As exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, the dismissal was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Walters v. Tugle, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    47 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cortez Walters' §1983 civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Walters received a misconduct conviction for a positive drug test in 2000 but did not timely appeal it through the prison's administrative process. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that Walters properly used the grievance process to raise his constitutional claims. As exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, the dismissal was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-06-06 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7005

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cortez Walters' §1983 civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Walters received a misconduct conviction for a positive drug test in 2000 but did not timely appeal it through the prison's administrative process. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that Walters properly used the grievance process to raise his constitutional claims. As exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, the dismissal was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    47 views4 pages

    Walters v. Tugle, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Cortez Walters' §1983 civil rights lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Walters received a misconduct conviction for a positive drug test in 2000 but did not timely appeal it through the prison's administrative process. The Court of Appeals found no evidence that Walters properly used the grievance process to raise his constitutional claims. As exhaustion of administrative remedies is required, the dismissal was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JUN 6 2003

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    CORTEZ DORNELL WALTERS,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    TERRY TUGLE; T. BUTLER; JOHN
    DOE, Mail Room Worker; ERICK
    FRANKLIN; SGT. TAYLOR;
    BUFFERY GUTHRIE; YATES,
    Counselor; CLIFF HARRIS; PHYLLIS
    COLLINS; OFFICER WOFFORD;
    OFFICER SCOGGINS,

    No. 03-7005
    (D.C. No. 02-CV-197-P)
    (E. District of Oklahoma)

    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
    Cortez Dornell Walters, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals
    the district courts dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit for

    The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument


    pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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.
    *

    failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. We exercise jurisdiction


    under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.
    This case has a lengthy factual history, set forth by the district court in its
    Order of January 9, 2003, and we repeat here only those facts necessary to an
    understanding of the background of this case. In November of 2000, Walters
    received an offense report for Individual Disruptive Behavior based on a
    positive drug urinalysis. Walters v. Tugle, No. CIV-02-197-P, slip op. at 2 (E.D.
    Okla. Jan. 9, 2003). Although he was given a copy of the specimen report, he
    claims that he was not provided with a copy of allegedly exculpatory evidence
    reports. He further contends that although his signature is on the investigators
    report, indicating that he had in fact been provided with all reports, it was a
    forgery. At his disciplinary hearing on December 7, Walters was found guilty of
    Individual Disruptive Behavior, resulting in fifteen days of disciplinary
    segregation, loss of visitation for forty-five days, and loss of 180 earned credits.
    At a subsequent rehearing, Walters was again found guilty. Walters did not
    timely appeal this decision through the administrative appeals process. 1
    Although Walters had fifteen days to appeal his misconduct conviction,
    he failed to do so. He later filed a grievance, which was returned to him advising
    him that the misconduct appeal procedure, and not the grievance procedure, was
    the appropriate avenue to appeal a misconduct conviction. Walters subsequently
    filed a grievance with the Department of Corrections Administrative Review
    Authority in the Directors Office, but it was returned to him for failure to comply
    (continued...)
    1

    -2-

    In July of 2001, Walters filed the instant 1983 suit, alleging a variety of
    constitutional violations stemming from this incident and other occurrences
    during his incarceration. In dismissing Walters suit, the district court found that
    Walters failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and presented no legitimate
    reason for not doing so.
    We review de novo a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative
    remedies. Miller v. Menghini, 213 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000), overruled
    on other grounds by Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001). Pursuant to the
    Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, prisoners bringing suit under 1983 must
    first exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal
    court. See 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) (No action shall be brought with respect to
    prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a
    prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
    administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.). Full exhaustion of
    available remedies is required regardless of the nature of the relief sought.
    Booth, 532 U.S. at 741.
    We have carefully reviewed Walters appellate brief, the district courts
    order, and the material portions of the record on appeal, and agree that Walters
    (...continued)
    with the grievance procedure rules. Walters was given ten days to submit a
    proper grievance appeal, but failed to do so.
    1

    -3-

    has failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Nowhere in the


    record is there evidence that Walters properly used the available prison grievance
    process to make his constitutional claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 2 Walters
    is reminded to make partial payments until the entire appellate filing fee is paid in
    full.
    The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT

    Carlos F. Lucero
    Circuit Judge

    We DENY Walters Application for Settlement Request, in which he


    proclaims his willingness to settle with the defendants for twenty-five-thousand
    dollars.
    2

    -4-

    You might also like