Ryan v. Corrections Corp. of America
17-6057
10th Cir.Nov 2, 2017Background
- Pro se California prisoner Patrick Ryan sued CCA, CDCR, and a CCA employee under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); they submitted affidavits showing noncompliance with CDCR grievance procedures.
- Magistrate judge converted the motion to a summary-judgment proceeding, found Ryan failed to exhaust, and recommended dismissal.
- District court ruled the magistrate gave adequate notice of conversion, adopted the recommendation, overruled Ryan’s objections, and entered judgment for defendants.
- Ryan appealed, raising (1) lack of notice of conversion, (2) challenge to a Martinez report, (3) factual claims that remedies were unavailable, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by converting motion to summary judgment without notice | Ryan contends he lacked proper Rule 56(f) notice | Magistrate’s order gave adequate notice; district court found notice sufficient | Court assumed notice adequate and reviewed de novo; no reversible error |
| Whether Ryan exhausted available administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) | Ryan alleged in complaint he exhausted remedies and raised factual barriers to availability | Defendants produced evidence he failed to follow CDCR grievance process | Plaintiff bore burden to produce contrary evidence in summary-judgment posture; court found he failed to rebut and affirmed judgment for defendants |
| Whether the district court improperly relied on a Martinez report | Ryan argued the report was improperly used | Defendants obtained report per Martinez; Ryan failed to timely object below | Ryan waived the objection; any reliance was minimal and harmless |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel supports relief | Ryan argued counsel’s deficiencies affected outcome (invoking Strickland) | No Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil case | Claim fails as there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (describing California’s multi-tiered inmate grievance scheme)
- Brown v. Zavaras, 63 F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 1995) (conversion of motion to dismiss into summary judgment)
- Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2006) (summary-judgment review standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005) (prisoner civil-rights standards in appellate review)
- Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) (requirement that plaintiff rebut evidence of non-exhaustion at summary judgment)
- Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F.2d 949 (10th Cir. 1992) (unsubstantiated allegations have no probative weight in summary judgment)
- Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015) (need to explain/apply arguments on appeal)
- Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978) (procedure for district courts to order prison official investigations/reports)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (limits on exhaustion requirement where remedies are not "available")
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil cases)
- Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 (1943) (appellant bears burden to show prejudice from erroneous rulings)