Barnes v. Clark
698 F. App'x 558
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Earl L. Barnes, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inadequate medical care for ear and urinary tract infections.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the federal claims and dismissed pendent state-law claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- UDOC's grievance policy requires completion of three grievance levels before filing suit. Defendants submitted declarations and Barnes’s UDOC grievance history.
- Records show Barnes filed an ear-related grievance up through level two in 2011 and filed no urological grievances.
- Barnes claimed defendants prevented him from pursuing level three and asserted he submitted a handwritten level-three appeal that was not in the record; he produced a handwritten appeal only on appeal, not to the district court.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, declined to consider the document first produced on appeal, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants; Barnes’s IFP request on appeal was denied and he was ordered to pay remaining appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes exhausted UDOC administrative remedies before suing | Barnes says defendants prevented exhaustion and he submitted a handwritten level-three appeal | Defendants show grievance history: ear grievance only to level two; no urology grievances; no record of level-three denial | Barnes did not exhaust; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether evidence exists creating a genuine factual dispute on exhaustion | Barnes points to alleged handwritten appeal and claims ongoing care blocked appeal | Defendants rely on declarations and official grievance records; no evidence of level-three denial | Court refused to consider document produced first on appeal; no genuine dispute exists |
| Whether the district court erred in excluding the handwritten appeal produced on appeal | Barnes submitted the handwritten appeal in his opening brief | Defendants argue district court record lacked that document | Court: cannot consider evidence not presented to the district court when reviewing summary judgment; exclusion proper |
| Whether pendent state-law claims should remain in federal court | Implied: Barnes sought relief on state claims tied to medical care | Defendants sought dismissal after federal claims resolved for failure to exhaust | Court affirmed dismissal without prejudice of state claims (following dismissal of federal claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., 659 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2011) (standards for reviewing summary judgment)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (failure-to-exhaust standard under § 1997e(a))
- Pioneer Ctrs. Holding Co. v. Alerus Fin., N.A., 858 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir. 2017) (party opposing summary judgment must show specific facts creating a genuine dispute)
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Weisman, 27 F.3d 500 (10th Cir. 1994) (court may not consider evidence on appeal that was not before the district court)