FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CHESTER LEE HUGGINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 16-1309
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02181-CBS)
JOHN REILLY, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Chester Lee Huggins, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. Background
Mr. Huggins is an African-American inmate in the custody of the Colorado
Department of Corrections (CDOC). He was employed sewing garments in the
Colorado Correctional Industries Garment Factory at the Limon Correctional Facility
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
(LCF) until he was transferred to the Sterling Correctional Facility (SCF). Defendant
John Reilly was the production supervisor at the garment factory.
Mr. Huggins filed a § 1983 complaint, which asserts two claims for relief
arising from his employment. The first claim alleges Mr. Reilly assigned only white
inmates to the higher paying jobs at the garment factory, in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The second claim alleges
Mr. Reilly retaliated against Mr. Huggins for filing a grievance regarding this
discriminatory treatment by giving him poor performance reviews and having him
transferred, in violation of the First Amendment. Mr. Huggins had submitted two
administrative grievances with similar claims before filing his complaint, one at LCF
and one at SCF, but prison officials rejected both as untimely because of missed
deadlines within CDOC’s three-step grievance procedure.
Mr. Reilly filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted
the motion and dismissed the civil rights action without prejudice for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies.1 Mr. Huggins filed this timely appeal.
II. Analysis
We review de novo the district court’s finding that Mr. Huggins failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032
(10th Cir. 2002).
1
The district court’s decision was issued by a magistrate judge, sitting by
consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), (3).
2
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a prisoner cannot
bring an action “with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see
also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007) (“[E]xhaustion is mandatory under the
PLRA . . . .”). The exhaustion doctrine protects administrative agency authority and
promotes efficiency. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89 (2006). Because the
exhaustion doctrine is an affirmative defense, Mr. Reilly “bear[s] the burden of
asserting and proving that [Mr. Huggins] did not utilize administrative remedies.”
Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 2011). But once Mr. Reilly proves
failure to exhaust, “the onus falls on the plaintiff to show that remedies were
unavailable to him.” Id.
Proper exhaustion requires compliance with all of the prison’s grievance
procedures, including “deadlines and other critical procedural rules[,] because no
adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure
on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91. Thus, “[a]n inmate
who begins the grievance process but does not complete it is barred from pursuing a
§ 1983 claim under PLRA for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.”
Jernigan, 304 F.3d at 1032. “[S]ubstantial compliance is insufficient.” Fields v.
Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109, 1112 (10th Cir. 2007). In its summary
judgment order, the district court took great care to outline the requirements for
CDOC’s grievance process and explain the ways in which Mr. Huggins failed to
comply with applicable deadlines.
3
On appeal, Mr. Huggins does not contest the finding that his grievances were
untimely. Instead, he seeks to overcome the exhaustion deficiencies by arguing that
prison officials hindered him from filing the requisite paperwork and thus rendered
the grievance process unavailable to him. See Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250
(10th Cir. 2010) (holding that exhaustion is not required “[w]here prison officials
prevent, thwart, or hinder a prisoner’s efforts to avail himself of an administrative
remedy”). He says, for instance, that officials gave him only two days—not five—to
complete step two of the process for his first grievance so he did not have time to
conduct necessary research. He also characterizes the grievance process as
“confusing” and “misleading,” see, e.g., Aplt. Opening Br. at 2, and complains that
for both grievances prison officials did not advise him how to correct procedural
deficiencies and resubmit his paperwork.
Because Mr. Huggins is proceeding pro se, “we construe his pleadings
liberally.” Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). We
make some allowances for deficiencies, such as unfamiliarity with pleading
requirements, failure to cite appropriate legal authority, and confusion of legal
theories. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.
2005). But we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in
constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id.
Like the district court, we have little difficulty concluding that Mr. Huggins’s
claims are barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He concedes he did
not comply with applicable deadlines for either grievance, and he has not presented
4
any credible evidence that prison officials acted in a way that rendered his
administrative remedies unavailable. Nor does his general confusion about the
grievance process excuse his noncompliance: “[I]t is well established that ignorance
of the law, even for an incarcerated pro se petitioner, generally does not excuse
prompt filing.” Marsh v. Soares, 223 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Hobbs v. Okla. State Penitentiary, No. 16-7022,
2016 WL 7367775, at *3 (10th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016) (applying this concept to uphold
dismissal of a § 1983 action based on a prisoner’s failure to exhaust).
We affirm the dismissal for substantially the same reasons stated by the district
court in its thorough, well-reasoned order. With respect to the first grievance, in
addition to the failure to comply with applicable deadlines, we add that Mr. Huggins
has not established two days was insufficient for him to complete the step-two
grievance form. That form resembles the step-one form and requires only a short,
one-paragraph statement of the basis for the prisoner’s grievance and the requested
remedy. See R., Vol. II at 313-14. Because we affirm based on failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, we need not consider the parties’ arguments about the
merits of the underlying § 1983 claims.
Mr. Huggins’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. The
relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), does not permit litigants to avoid payment of
filing and docketing fees, only prepayment of those fees. Since we have reached the
merits of this matter, prepayment of fees is no longer an issue. We remind Mr. Huggins
5
of his obligation to continue making partial payment until his appellate filing fee is
paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
6