Bey v. Doe , 55 F. App'x 506 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 24 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMAL BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
No. 02-3346
TERRY DOE, Lansing Correctional D.C. No. 01-CV-3465-GTV
Facility-East Unit Aramark Manager; (D. Kansas)
and C. SCHEIDECKER, Clinical
Chaplin for Lansing Correctional
Facility East,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
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); 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
This is a pro se state prisoner 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights appeal. Mr.
Bey filed this claim in the district court on behalf of himself and all Muslim and
Moorish Science inmates. Mr. Bey sought immediate injunctive relief and
damages, claiming that the Aramark food manager and the chaplain at the Lansing
Correctional Facility were not complying with an agreement reached between
inmates and prison officials regarding the food to be served during Ramadan.
The district court found that the requirements for certification as a class action
were not satisfied and declined to certify the claim and that Mr. Bey was the sole
plaintiff in the action. The district court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
After a thorough review of the brief and the record, we agree with the
district court that Appellant has failed to exhaust the available formal grievance
procedure on his claim. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons set forth in
the district court’s well-reasoned January 3, 2002, Order, we hold that Mr. Bey
may not proceed without first exhausting his administrative remedies.
The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. We remind Appellant that
because his motion to proceed without prepayment of the appellate filing fee was
granted, he must continue making partial payments on court fees and costs
previously assessed until such have been paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-