Magallanes v. Harding, 071218 FED10, 17-8077

• Docket Nº: 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

Tweet

 

FREE EXCERPT

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, individually and in his official capacity; STEVE HARGETT, individually and in his official capacity; CORPORAL KENNEDY, individually and in his official capacity; MATTHEW MEAD, individually and in his official capacity; MICHAEL GROOMAN, individually; JOSEPH MARTINEZ, individually; BOBBY SCHAPER; STATE OF WYOMING; WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WYOMING STATE PENITENTIARY; JOHN AND JANE DOES, 1-30, individually and in his/her/their official capacity(ies), Defendants - Appellees.

No. 17-8077

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

July 12, 2018

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...