F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 10 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICKEY LAVERN SHEPPARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-6183
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1296-T)
LARRY DEAN LONG; BESSIE (W.D. Okla.)
KIRKPATRICK; C/O I CRENSHAW;
C/O II HOOD; C/O II MOODY;
JERRY STOCKLON, Counselor,
H Unit; JIMMY SHIPLEY, Senior
Case Manager H Unit; JOE ARDESE;
SHIRLEY LEEPER; RON WARD;
DOLORES RAMSEY; LARRY
FIELDS; KATHY WATERS;
- MCFARLIN, Counselor F Cellhouse;
EDDIE MORGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff-appellant Rickey Lavern Sheppard, an inmate in the custody of the
Oklahoma Department of Corrections, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that actions of prison officials violated his due process rights and the
Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 1 The district
court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding they were entitled to
qualified immunity because plaintiff had failed to show their conduct violated an
established constitutional or statutory right. “We review de novo the district
court’s grant of qualified immunity on summary judgment, viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d
1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1997).
After he had filed his appellate brief, plaintiff wrote a letter to the Clerk of
this circuit dated November 3, 1997, stating that “[s]ince the last part of August,
approx., I have been placed in the cells with four(4) different known homosexuals
and three of them has aids . . . . They are actually using these inmates as aids
assissins [sic] by allowing them to house with other inmates and not telling them
they have aids.” Because we rarely consider issues on appeal that have not been
previously raised to the district court, see Sac & Fox Nation v. Hanson, 47 F.3d
1
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. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
1061, 1063 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting that such consideration will be forthcoming
only in cases of the most manifest error), and because even pro se litigants are
required to follow federal procedural rules, see Ogden v. San Juan County, 32
F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994), we will not consider the allegations in plaintiff’s
letter at this time. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this claim, he must first exhaust
prison administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); cf. Garrett v. Hawk,
127 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that after PLRA, exhaustion
requirement no longer applies only to state prisoners). After such exhaustion, he
may then be able to bring the claim in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Our review of the record presented below, the parties’ briefs, and the
opinions of the magistrate judge and the district court fails to reveal error in the
grant of summary judgment. We, therefore, affirm the entry of judgment for
defendants for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-