Mendoza v. Doe ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 12 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ISAIAS MENDOZA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JANE JOE, Unit Manager; JULIAN
PADILLA, Correctional Officer,
Cibola County Correctional Center;
DARLENE VALLEY, Assistant Shift
No. 03-2113
Commander; ADELIO GALLEGOS,
(D.C. No. CIV-02-1611)
JR., Shift Supervisor; NIKKI
(New Mexico)
DILLON, Medical Administrator,
Cibola County Correctional Center;
GARLAND JEFFERS, Warden, Cibola
County Correctional Center, in their
individual and official capacities;
DON RUSSELL, Grievance Officer;
MR. LEE, Senior Officer, Cibola
County Correctional Center,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
After examining appellant’s brief and the 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)(2) and 10th Cir. R.
34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of
orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the
Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Isaias Mendoza brought a civil rights complaint against various employees
of the New Mexico correctional facility in which he was housed. He alleged
violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, stemming from a) a
confrontation with a prison employee, b) his placement in segregation without the
opportunity to make a statement or cross-examine witnesses, and c) the facility’s
failure to treat a back injury sustained while employed as a masonry instructor
within the prison. The district court dismissed Mr. Mendoza’s claims without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires
prisoners to exhaust “available” administrative remedies prior to initiating
litigation concerning the conditions of their confinement. The apparent futility of
those remedies does not obviate the need to exhaust them. Jernigan v. Stuchell,
304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002). Therefore, Mr. Mendoza’s assertion that
he attempted to exhaust his administrative remedies does not save him from the
dismissal without prejudice issued by the district court.
On appeal, Mr. Mendoza argues the PLRA does not apply in his case–one
against a private correctional facility. This contention is without merit. In
terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
-2-
Jernigan, the court dismissed a claim against the same private company Mr.
Mendoza is suing on the ground that the plaintiff in that case failed to exhaust
administrative remedies pursuant to the PLRA. Id. at 1033. See also Herrera v.
County of Santa Fe, 213 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1293 (D. N.M. 2002) (holding PLRA
exhaustion requirements apply to private entities). The district court’s dismissal
without prejudice was proper. We GRANT Mr. Mendoza’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Mendoza’s
claims.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Circuit Judge
-3-