Hilliard v. Ray ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
April 16, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
D A V ID L. H ILLIA RD ,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 06-7062
v. (E.D. of Okla.)
C HA RLES R AY , Warden, JO E (D.C. No. CV -05-154-S)
CROW , W arehouse Supervisor,
STEVE KAISER, Previous W arden,
ROBERT EZELL, Assistant W arden,
DA VIS CORR ECTION AL FACILITY
M EDICAL DEPA RTM ENT, and
O K LA H OMA D EPA RTM EN T OF
CO RR ECTIONS,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, T YM KOV IC H, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges. **
David L. Hilliard, an Oklahoma state prisoner, proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his claim against several prison officials for
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
**
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); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
failure to provide adequate medical care. The district court dismissed Hilliard’s
complaint because Hilliard failed to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative
remedies as to all claims. To support the requirement that a prisoner’s complaint
must demonstrate total administrative exhaustion, the district court relied on
Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1209–10 (10th Cir. 2003)
(holding prisoners have the burden of pleading exhaustion) and Ross v. County of
Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding prisoner must exhaust
remedies on all claims presented).
In Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007), however, we
recently recognized that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S.
Ct. 910 (2007), overruled both Steele and Ross. Accordingly, Hilliard need not
show in his complaint that he has administratively exhausted his claims. See
Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 921. Rather, the defendants may raise failure to exhaust as an
affirmative defense. See id. Furthermore, Hilliard may proceed on his exhausted
claims even if he has not exhausted others. See id. at 923–26.
The district court also determined Hilliard’s action was frivolous and
should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (providing that when a court has
authorized an action to proceed in form a pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case
if it thereafter determines the action is frivolous). Because the court devoted the
substance of its order to discussing our now-superceded precedent requiring an
inmate to adequately plead exhaustion, we will treat the court’s finding of
-2-
frivolousness as based on that precedent and not as an independent ground for
dismissal.
In light of the foregoing discussion, we V ACATE the district court’s
decision and REM AND for further proceedings in accordance with Jones v. Bock.
W e remind Hilliard of his obligation, under the district court’s order granting
leave to proceed in form a pauperis, to continue making partial payments on the
filing fee until the entire fee has been paid.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M . Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-3-