304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002), 02-6052, Jernigan v. Stuchell

Docket Nº:02-6052.
Citation:304 F.3d 1030
Party Name:Dewey Earl JERNIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen STUCHELL; Ramona Hollier; James L. Saffle; Melinda Guilfoyle; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; B. Hendrix; Elvis Hightower; Joe S. Hopper, in individual and official capacities; Michael Quinlan, in individual and official capacities; Corrections Corporation of America, in individual and official capacit
Case Date:September 17, 2002
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1030

304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002)

Dewey Earl JERNIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

Karen STUCHELL; Ramona Hollier; James L. Saffle; Melinda Guilfoyle; John Doe, I; John Doe, II; B. Hendrix; Elvis Hightower; Joe S. Hopper, in individual and official capacities; Michael Quinlan, in individual and official capacities; Corrections Corporation of America, in individual and official capacities, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6052.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

September 17, 2002

Page 1031

Dewey Earl Jernigan, Pro Se.

Linda Soper, Assistant Attorney General, Litigation Section, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendants-Appellees James L. Saffle, Melinda Guilfoyle and Karen Stuchell.

Darrell L. Moore, Pryor, OK, for Defendants-Appellees Corrections Corporation of America, Inc., Michael Quinlin, Joe Hopper, and Elvis Hightower.

Before KELLY, McKAY and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.[*]

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dewey Earl Jernigan, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Mr. Jernigan alleges that his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated when his personal legal materials were improperly confiscated from his cell. Apparently, prison officials contended that Mr. Jernigan was providing legal assistance to other inmates for compensation. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who ordered a Martinez report. R. Doc. 21. Various Defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on several grounds including lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Upon recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on January 22, 2002. R. Doc. 28. Mr. Jernigan then mailed a Motion for Clarification from the Court on February 4, 2002. R. Doc. 29. The district court ordered the Defendants to respond, particularly to Mr. Jernigan's arguments concerning the ODOC grievance process. R. Doc. 32. After the Defendants' response, the district court denied the motion for clarification on February 20, 2002. R. Doc. 34. On January 31, 2002, Mr. Jernigan mailed a notice of appeal from the district court's January 22 order dismissing the action. R. Doc. 30.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP