FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 9, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
TERRENCE R. BRIDGEFORTH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 10-7059
(D. Ct. No. 6:09-CIV-00403-FHS-SPS)
RANDALL G. WORKMAN, (E.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Circuit Judge, TACHA, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in 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.
Plaintiff-appellant Terrence R. Bridgeforth was an Oklahoma prisoner when he
filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights.1 The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
1
Mr. Bridgeforth has since been released from custody.
administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.
I. DISCUSSION
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available
administrative remedies before suing over prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 733 (2001). Because the prison’s procedural
requirements define the steps necessary for exhaustion, an inmate may only exhaust by
properly following all of the steps laid out in the prison system’s grievance procedure.
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). To exhaust remedies pursuant to the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections’ (“ODOC”) grievance procedures, a prisoner must first
attempt to informally resolve his complaint by talking with prison staff within three days
of the incident. If not resolved, the prisoner must submit a Request to Staff within seven
days of the incident. Next, the inmate must submit a grievance report form within fifteen
days of either the date of the incident or the date of the Request to Staff, whichever is
later. Finally, the inmate must submit an appeal that includes the Request to Staff, the
grievance report, and the responses to the reviewing authority or the facility correctional
health services administrator.
In this case, the district court dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust based on an
affidavit from the ODOC’s Manager of the Administrative Review Unit, which states that
Mr. Bridgeforth has never submitted a proper grievance related to the claims in his § 1983
suit. On appeal, Mr. Bridgeforth contends that he made good-faith efforts to comply with
grievance procedures and that his interpretation of the ODOC’s grievance procedures
-2-
were reasonable. Even if this is the case, however, such a circumstance does not excuse
failure to exhaust. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (“[P]roper exhaustion of
administrative remedies . . . means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so
properly (so that the agency [may address] the issues on the merits).”) (quotations
omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Bridgeforth has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as required under § 1997e(a).
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr.
Bridgeforth’s complaint.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-3-