Campbell v. Jones, 684 F. App'x 750

Background

Campbell, an Oklahoma inmate with hypertension, lost his blood-pressure meds after his cell flooded on Dec. 30, 2012, and after six days without replacement suffered a stroke; he was hospitalized and discharged with prescriptions and follow-up instructions.
Campbell submitted an emergency medical grievance on Jan. 22, 2013 to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Genese McCoy, demanding treatment per discharge instructions and disciplinary action against staff; the CMO returned it as non-emergency and directed him to the facility CHSA (Jody Jones).
Campbell submitted a Request to Staff and subsequently filed grievances directed to the warden and then to CHSA Jones; Jones returned the grievance for procedural errors, warned that he waived further process, and later imposed grievance restrictions; Campbell never filed a final appeal to the Administrative Review Authority (ARA)/CMO.
The district court granted defendants summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA; a magistrate judge had earlier suggested the final stage might have been effectively unavailable, but the district court rejected that view.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding Campbell failed to exhaust because available avenues (appeal to the CMO/ARA and appeals of Jones’s rulings/restrictions) remained open and Campbell did not pursue them.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Campbell exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	His emergency grievance to the CMO and Jones’s rejection made the final appeal unavailable, so exhaustion was excused	Campbell failed to complete appeal to CMO/ARA and did not challenge Jones’s denial or restrictions, so remedies remained available	Held: Campbell did not exhaust; summary judgment affirmed
Whether officials thwarted use of grievance process	Jones’s invalid denials, warnings, and restrictions effectively blocked the final stage	No evidence of threats or intimidation; errors were appealable and did not render process unavailable	Held: No sufficient evidence of thwarting to excuse exhaustion
Whether filing an emergency grievance with the CMO satisfied final-step exhaustion	Emergency grievance to CMO should conclude process and made further appeals futile	Emergency grievance was misfiled (should have gone to CHSA) and even unfavorable responses were appealable; no futility exception	Held: Emergency grievance did not satisfy exhaustion; futility exception inapplicable
Whether later policy excerpts or other inmates’ materials show exhaustion occurred	Supplemental materials show CMO decisions can be final, thus Campbell was not required to appeal	The updated policy postdated Campbell’s filings and the other inmate’s letter is not probative of his situation	Held: Supplementary materials do not demonstrate exhaustion; motion to supplement denied as to its effect on exhaustion but granted procedurally

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. Parker, 609 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2010) (lays out Oklahoma inmate grievance process and exhaustion rules)
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (agency’s improper rejection of final appeal can render final step unavailable)
Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011) (threats or intimidation by officials can make grievance process unavailable)
Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (inmate who begins but does not complete grievance process is barred from § 1983 claim)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (remedies are unavailable only in narrow circumstances like consistent unwillingness or when process is a dead end)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (exhaustion allows agency to correct its mistakes before federal suit)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2001) (no futility exception to exhaustion requirement)
United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (pro se filings given liberal construction but court will not act as advocate)