Starks v. Lewis , 313 F. App'x 163 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 23, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
WALTER L. STARKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 08-6137
(W.D. Okla.)
TOM LEWIS, Oklahoma Correctional (D.Ct. No. 5:06-CV-00512-M)
Industries; DAVE MILLER, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
____________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f)); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Walter Starks, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
1
We liberally construe pro se pleadings and appellate briefs. Ledbetter v. City of
Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint against
Tom Lewis, a supervisor at Oklahoma Correctional Industries (Factory #66) and
Warden David Miller. The district court dismissed Starks’ claims against Lewis
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and Starks’
claims against Warden Miller for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. We AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
After Starks worked in the prison employment program for over six years,
Lewis terminated his employment. Believing he was fired due to allegations of
stealing, Starks filed a “Request to Staff” with Lewis, denying wrongdoing and
requesting reinstatement. In his request Starks alleged his termination appeared
to be racially motivated because two other white employees had been caught
stealing and did not lose their jobs. Lewis responded the same day, informing
Starks an officer had filed the complaint against Starks after observing Starks
wrapping t-shirts around his leg. The officer assumed he was going to remove
this property and then saw Starks leave the area without permission or submitting
to a search as required by prison policy. Lewis noted Starks’ termination was for
this breach of policy rather than for stealing. Lewis concluded:
Walter, you screwed-up and it cost you your job, I think it is time
you stop crying about how you’ve been treated and face the fact that
you are the reason you were terminated; no-one “snitched” you off!
You did this to your-self period. Naming other people in your
request to staff; now that’s being a snitch! There’s one other issue
-2-
you raise in your request to staff, I will not dignify with a response,
I’ll simply let others who know me testify to that . . . .
(R. Doc. 1, Ex. 3.)
Starks next filed an “Inmate/Offender Grievance Report Form” with
the warden’s office. Starks set forth the foregoing correspondence, again
denied any wrongdoing and claimed race discrimination. Starks also
alleged Lewis retaliated against him by having an inmate clerk type Lewis’
response to the “Request to Staff.” That inmate read the comment about
Starks being a snitch and informed other inmates, placing Starks’ life in
danger. Warden Miller denied Starks’ grievance stating “Mr. Lewis . . .
answered your request appropriately” and explained, “[p]olicy does not
dictate which job an inmate is required to be employed in and
discrimination has nothing to do with this incident.” (R. Doc. 1, Ex. 6.)
Starks then filed an appeal to the Administrative Review Authority.
On December 12, 2005, Starks received notice his appeal was not
procedurally compliant. Specifically, Starks presented more than one issue
in his claim – “fired from [Oklahoma Correctional Industries]; inmate
typing response and inmate read response; placing life in danger” – and he
failed to recommend a definite action to be taken by the reviewing
authority. (R. Doc. 1, Ex. 7.) The notice informed Starks he had “ten
calendar days from date of receipt to properly submit the grievance.” (Id.)
-3-
Starks did not submit a corrected appeal.
Instead, Starks filed a § 1983 complaint alleging Lewis and Warden
Miller had violated his First Amendment rights. He alleged Lewis
retaliated against him for his report, denied him the opportunity to petition
the government and placed his life in danger. He alleged Warden Miller
was liable due to his “supervisory condoning of the wrongs [of Lewis] and
for failing to correct and abate the wrongs while empowered and authorized
to take official action.” (R. Doc. 1 at 3(b).)
After a referral of the matter to a magistrate judge, Lewis and Miller
filed separate motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative,
motions for summary judgment. The magistrate issued a thorough report
recommending the claims against Lewis be dismissed without prejudice
because Starks had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and the
claims against Miller be dismissed with prejudice because Starks failed to
allege Miller was personally involved in the alleged constitutional
violation. Over Starks’ objections, the district court adopted the
recommendations of the magistrate and dismissed Starks’ claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Exhaustion – Defendant Lewis
We review de novo the district court's finding of failure to exhaust
-4-
administrative remedies. Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th
Cir. 2002). Starks concedes he did not resubmit his grievance to the
Administrative Review Authority after he received his noncompliance
notice. He maintains, however, his appeal contained only one issue.
Because he provided the reviewing authority the opportunity to review his
claim but it erroneously refused to consider it, he exhausted his
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
He is mistaken.
The PLRA provides, “No action shall be brought with respect to
prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law,
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). An inmate who begins the grievance process but does not
complete it is barred from pursuing a § 1983 claim under the PLRA for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Jernigan, 304 F.3d at 1032.
Starks’ belief the reviewing authority improperly rejected his grievance is
irrelevant. The rejection notice, rightly or wrongly, directed Starks to the
deficiencies he needed to cure and invited him to do so within ten calendar
days. Contrary to Starks’ assertions, this administrative remedy remained
available. He simply chose not to take advantage of the opportunity to
clarify any misunderstanding that, in his opinion, the reviewing authority
-5-
entertained. As we have stated before, an inmate “may not successfully
argue that he had exhausted his administrative remedies by, in essence,
failing to employ them and since he may now be time barred from pursuing
them, they are exhausted by default.” Id. at 1033.
B. Supervisor Liability – Defendant Miller
“Because the sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law, we
review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6), applying the same standards as
the district court.” Russell v. United States, 551 F.3d 1174, 1178 (10th Cir.
2008) (quotations omitted).
In the Rule 12(b)(6) context, we look for plausibility in the
complaint. In particular, we look to the specific allegations in the
complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim
for relief. Rather than adjudging whether a claim is improbable,
factual allegations in a complaint must be enough to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations and quotations
omitted).
Starks argues the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Miller
because Miller failed to take corrective action in response to his complaints
concerning Lewis and it is “clear that Prison officials may not subject an inmate
-6-
in their custody to life threatening situation[s].” (Appellant’s Br. at 8.) 2
Starks points to Choate v. Lockhart, for the proposition that “[s]upervisors
can incur liability for cruel and unusual punishment in two ways: they can be
liable for their personal involvement in a constitutional violation, or when their
corrective inaction amounts to deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of
the violative practices.” 7 F.3d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993) (citations and
quotations omitted). Starks contends when Miller received his grievance against
Lewis and failed to address his retaliation claims, Miller demonstrated his tacit
authorization of Lewis’ actions.
To the extent Starks claims Miller is liable for a First Amendment violation
as Lewis’ supervisor, we have summarized the parameters of supervisory liability
under § 1983 as follows:
Under § 1983, government officials are not vicariously liable for the
misconduct of their subordinates. There is no concept of strict
supervisor liability under § 1983. This does not mean that a
supervisor may not be liable for the injuries caused by the conduct of
one of his subordinates. It does mean that his liability is not
vicarious, that is, without fault on his part.
2
“Under certain circumstances, a district court may, notwithstanding failure to
exhaust, proceed to the merits of the claim and dismiss with prejudice if it concludes a
party would be unsuccessful even absent the exhaustion issue.” Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp.
of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1139 (10th Cir. 2005); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) (“In the
event that a claim is, on its face, frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief, the court may dismiss the underlying claim without first requiring the exhaustion of
administrative remedies.”). This is the approach taken by the district court in regards to
Starks’ claims against Warden Miller.
-7-
Supervisors are only liable under § 1983 for their own culpable
involvement in the violation of a person's constitutional rights. To
establish supervisor liability under § 1983, it is not enough for a
plaintiff merely to show a defendant was in charge of other state
actors who actually committed the violation. Instead, the plaintiff
must establish a deliberate, intentional act by the supervisor to
violate constitutional rights. In short, the supervisor must be
personally involved in the constitutional violation, and a sufficient
causal connection must exist between the supervisor and the
constitutional violation.
In order to establish a § 1983 claim against a supervisor for the
unconstitutional acts of his subordinates, a plaintiff must first show
the supervisor’s subordinates violated the constitution. Then, a
plaintiff must show an affirmative link between the supervisor and
the violation, namely the active participation or acquiescence of the
supervisor in the constitutional violation by the subordinates. In this
context, the supervisor’s state of mind is a critical bridge between the
conduct of a subordinate and his own behavior. Because mere
negligence is not enough to hold a supervisor liable under § 1983, a
plaintiff must establish that the supervisor acted knowingly or with
deliberate indifference that a constitutional violation would occur.
Serna v. Colorado Dep’t. of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006)
(citations and quotations omitted). Miller’s response to Starks’ grievance
negates any inference he acquiesced to Lewis’ alleged retaliation in
response to Starks’ discrimination claim. Miller stated: “Mr. Lewis
questioned the security of the facility with you as an employee; therefore,
he has the authority to recommend your dismissal and to not rehire you . .
. . [D]iscrimination has nothing to do with this incident.” (R. Doc. 1, Ex.
4.)
To the extent Starks is claiming Miller violated the Eighth
-8-
Amendment in breaching his “duty to protect prisoners from violence at the
hands of other prisoners,” his complaint must meet the standards in Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation omitted). Starks must plead
(1) a substantial risk of serious harm (objective prong) and (2) [Miller’s]
deliberate indifference to that risk (subjective prong). Id. at 834. Starks’
complaint fails both prongs.
“It is not . . . every injury suffered by one prisoner at the hands of
another that translates into [a] constitutional liability . . . .” Id. To be
deliberately indifferent a prison official must know of and disregard “an
excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of
facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of
serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. at 837.
Starks’ grievance contained only the charge that Lewis allowed an
inmate to type and read the response to Starks and, as a result, Starks
feared for his life because inmates who have been caught stealing “have
been looking at [Starks] as if [he] is the cause of them losing their jobs.”
(R. Doc. 1, Ex. 4.) He does not claim Miller received any other
information regarding Starks’ circumstances or was aware of the “threats”
he alleges in his complaint. These allegations are insufficient to notify
Miller of any ongoing constitutional violation, let alone establish Miller’s
deliberate indifference to alleged unconstitutional activity. Warden Miller
-9-
is under no duty to personally conduct a full investigation into an inmate’s
complaint that the other inmates are “looking” at him. This is hardly a
claim of “excessive risk to safety” or notice of a “substantial risk of serious
harm.” The district court correctly dismissed Starks’ claims against Miller.
AFFIRMED.
Entered by the Court:
Terrence L. O’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-10-