Magallanes v. Harding, 071218 FED10, 17-8077
|Opinion Judge:||Harris L Hartz, Circuit Judge|
|Party Name:||EDDIE MAGALLANES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. P. HARDING, individually and in his official capacity; SECURITY MAJOR DOE, individually and in his official capacity; EDDIE WILSON, individually and in his official capacity; DAN SHANNON, individually and in his official capacity; ROBERT LAMPERT, individually and in his official capacity; STEVE LUNDLY...|
|Judge Panel:||Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||July 12, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00278-SWS, D. Wyo.
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
Harris L Hartz, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Eddie Magallanes brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Wyoming law against several prison officials and inmates arising out of his beating while incarcerated at the Wyoming State Penitentiary (WSP). The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming dismissed all his claims. On appeal Magallanes challenges only the dismissal of his § 1983 claims against prison officials based on his failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies and qualified immunity. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Because the district court correctly dismissed his claims with prejudice for failure to exhaust, we need not address qualified immunity.
"Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), [prisoners are] required to exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing . . . suit in federal court." Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2010). "Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006). Wyoming prisoners are...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP