Thompson v. Coulter
680 F. App'x 707
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Thompson, a Utah prisoner, appeals summary judgment for Captain Coulter on failure-to-exhaust.
- Thompson claimed misclassification caused him to be housed with cellmate RR, who sexually assaulted him twice in August 2011; he was transferred after reporting.
- Coulter asserted exhaustion as an affirmative defense and argued Thompson had no liberty interest in prison classification; district court granted summary judgment for Coulter.
- The panel reviews de novo, drawing all in Thompson's favor as the nonmoving party, and notes pro se status but adherence to procedural rules.
- Court holds Thompson has no liberty interest in discretionary prison classifications, so classification claim fails; exhaustion arguments addressed only insofar as necessary.
- Exhaustion of the sexual assault claim was required under the PLRA; Thompson did not file a timely grievance, and other exhaustion-related theories fail; dismissal with prejudice due to time-barred grievance is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson's due process claim survives lack of liberty interest. | Thompson argues misclassification violated due process and requires relief. | Coulter contends no liberty interest in classification; exhaustion issue separate. | No liberty interest; summary judgment proper on classification claim. |
| Whether Thompson properly exhausted administrative remedies for the sexual assault claim. | Thompson contends exhaustion was unavailable or excusable; PREA and other theories discussed but not accepted. | Exhaustion required; Thompson did not timely grieve the sexual assaults. | Exhaustion not satisfied; PLRA dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2011) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion required for prison-condition suits)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (proper completion of grievance process required)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (no liberty interest in discretionary classification decisions)
- Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (authority to affirm on grounds not reached below)
- Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2011) (liberally construed filings; but not an attorney)
- Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2005) (dismissal for lack of exhaustion ordinarily without prejudice)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigant not entitled to counsel as a matter of right)
- Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) (implicit denial of arguments may be treated as denial of motions)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in §1983 cases)