Miles v. (FNU) Conrad, 697 F. App'x 592

Maurice L. Miles, Jr., a pretrial detainee at Reno County Jail, sued jail officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect him from an assault and for denying medical treatment.
Miles initially filed a pro se complaint alleging he filed a grievance that was denied and that defendants told him the matter was not grievable.
The district court issued a notice of deficiency; Miles refiled on the correct form but left the section about prior administrative relief blank.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 claim sua sponte for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether dismissal was proper where the operative complaint was silent on exhaustion but the original complaint alleged a filed and denied grievance.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding the district court erred in sua sponte dismissal because exhaustion is an affirmative defense and the record did not clearly show non‑exhaustion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly dismissed Miles's § 1983 claim sua sponte for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)	Miles alleged he filed a grievance that was denied and that officials said the matter was not grievable; the omission on the second form did not concede non‑exhaustion	The district court treated the blank administrative‑relief section as showing non‑exhaustion and dismissed sua sponte	Reversed: dismissal improper because exhaustion is an affirmative defense and the complaint did not clearly show failure to exhaust; original allegations of grievance deny warrant relief without more

Aquilar‑Avellaveda v. Terrell, 478 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; caution against sua sponte dismissal when complaint is silent)
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (pro se complaints must be construed liberally)