Hobbs v. Oklahoma State Penitentiary
673 F. App'x 837
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hobbs, a pro se prisoner, attempted to file an unauthorized second/successive § 2254 petition and sought sealed state‑court records from the prison law library.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of access to courts and related misconduct by OSP employees: Law Library Supervisor Wayne Brackenseik, Legal Clerk Ramona Allen, and Warden’s Assistant Terry Crenshaw.
- The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice: claims against Crenshaw for lack of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); official‑capacity claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment; individual‑capacity claims against Brackenseik and Allen dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- Hobbs appealed; the Tenth Circuit treated his pro se filings liberally but declined to act as his advocate and reviewed de novo the Eleventh Amendment and exhaustion issues.
- The court found Hobbs failed to provide a correct address for service of Crenshaw, upheld Eleventh Amendment immunity for OSP and the officials sued in their official capacities, and concluded Hobbs did not properly follow ODOC grievance procedures (timeliness, procedural steps, appeals) so his individual claims were unexhausted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service on Crenshaw under Rule 4(m) | Hobbs attempted service via U.S. Marshals but provided an incorrect address; he implied service efforts were sufficient | Marshals not obligated to locate a defendant without an accessible forwarding address; Hobbs had duty to provide correct address | Dismissal for lack of service affirmed; Hobbs failed to provide proper address so dismissal for untimely service not an abuse of discretion |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for OSP and officials in official capacity | Hobbs sought money damages and injunctive relief against OSP and officials in official capacities | State agency and state officials sued in official capacity are immune under the Eleventh Amendment | Dismissal affirmed; Eleventh Amendment bars Hobbs’ official‑capacity claims |
| PLRA exhaustion for individual‑capacity claims | Hobbs argued grievance process was unavailable/unknown and he attempted multiple RTS/grievances and appeals | Defendants point to ODOC grievance rules and Hobbs’ noncompliance with procedural requirements and deadlines | Dismissal affirmed; Hobbs failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies (timeliness, required steps, improper appeals) |
| Excuse of exhaustion due to lack of access to grievance rules | Hobbs claimed he was denied access to rules and law | Defendants note Hobbs completed grievance forms that contained procedural details; ignorance is not an excuse | Court rejected excuse; failure to exhaust cannot be excused by ignorance of law or policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary, 511 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must provide an address for service; marshals need not locate a defendant without a forwarding address)
- Jones v. Frank, 973 F.2d 872 (10th Cir. 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal under Rule 4(m))
- Arbogast v. Kan. Dep’t of Labor, 789 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2015) (Eleventh Amendment immunity reviewed de novo)
- Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med. Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies and officials in official capacity for damages and injunctive relief)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion in compliance with prison grievance procedures)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of PLRA exhaustion dismissals)
- Napier v. Laurel Cty., 636 F.3d 218 (6th Cir. 2011) (ignorance of law or grievance policy does not excuse failure to exhaust)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (courts must construe pro se complaints liberally but not act as advocate)
- Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2003) (court is not required to search the record for dormant evidence that would necessitate a jury trial)