F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 6 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL MACKEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-7071
(Eastern District of Oklahoma)
RON WARD; MIKE MULLIN, (D.C. No. 03-CV-676-S)
individually and in their official
capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Proceeding pro se, state prisoner Michael Mackey appeals the district
court’s dismissal of the civil rights claims he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Mackey and four other inmates filed an amended § 1983 complaint on May
4, 2004 containing allegations that Defendants deprived them of their
constitutional rights in violation of the First Amendment by refusing to allow
them to purchase television sets. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mackey’s
claims, arguing that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the
Department of Correction’s Grievance Process (the “Grievance Process”). 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.”); Booth v. Churner , 531 U.S. 731, 741 (2001).
Mackey argued that exhaustion was futile because a provision in the Grievance
Process permits the reviewing authority to place an inmate on a grievance
restriction if the inmate is found to have abused the process. An inmate may be
found to have abused the grievance process if, inter alia, there are “repetitive
grievances [filed] by multiple inmates about the same issue.” Mackey argued that
he was subject to the restriction because two of the other plaintiffs had already
filed grievances on the same issue. The district court rejected Mackey’s argument
that exhaustion was futile, granted Defendant’s motion, and dismissed Mackey’s
-2-
claims. The court also entered a Rule 54(b) certificate and Mackey brought this
appeal.
This court reviews a dismissal for failure to exhaust de novo. See Miller v.
Menghini , 213 F.3d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000). On appeal, Mackey admits that
he did not exhaust his administrative remedies but asserts, as he did before the
district court, that restrictions on his use of the Grievance Process render
administrative remedies unavailable. Mackey’s conclusory allegations that
pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile, however, are insufficient to
excuse his failure to exhaust. Although we conclude that the district court did
not err when it dismissed Mackey’s claims, the court should have dismissed those
claims without prejudice. See Ross v. County of Bernalillo , 365 F.3d 1181, 1190
(10th Cir. 2004) (“If a prisoner does submit a complaint containing one or more
unexhausted claims, the district court ordinarily must dismiss the entire action
without prejudice.”); Yousef v. Reno , 254 F.3d 1214, 1216 & n. 1, 1222-23 (10th
Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mackey’s claims
but remand to the district court to vacate its entry of judgment in favor of
Defendants and to, instead, dismiss Mackey’s claims without prejudice. Mackey
-3-
is reminded that he remains obligated to continue making partial payments until
his appellate filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-