Truby v. Denham
693 F. App'x 777
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert J. Truby, a federal inmate in Colorado proceeding pro se, sued prison officials under Bivens alleging Eighth Amendment violations based on inadequate ventilation and alleged concealment by Warden Denham and Health and Safety Manager Motchan.
- Denham and Motchan moved for summary judgment arguing Truby failed to exhaust the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
- The BOP has a four-step administrative remedy program; Truby admitted he did not complete the fourth (final) step by awaiting the General Counsel’s response period.
- The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed Truby’s claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
- Truby argued exhaustion should be excused as futile; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and found futility does not excuse exhaustion when remedies are available and not obstructed.
- The court denied Truby’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs because he failed to show a nonfrivolous appellate argument, and directed payment of the filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Truby exhausted available BOP administrative remedies before filing suit | Truby contended exhaustion was futile and thus should be excused | Denham and Motchan argued Truby did not complete the final administrative step and therefore failed to exhaust | Held: Truby failed to exhaust; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether futility excuses failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Truby argued the appeal process was ineffectual and therefore futile | Defendants maintained exhaustion is required even if remedies appear futile absent prevention by officials | Held: Futility is not an excuse; exhaustion required unless officials prevented access |
| Whether prison officials prevented access to remedies so that remedies were unavailable | Truby did not allege officials prevented or hindered his appeals | Defendants asserted no interference with Truby’s use of the administrative process | Held: No showing of prevention; remedies were available and must be exhausted |
| Whether to grant in forma pauperis (proceed without prepayment) on appeal | Truby sought to proceed without prepayment | Respondents opposed, arguing the appeal lacked a nonfrivolous basis | Held: Denied — Truby failed to show a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizing a civil cause of action for certain constitutional violations by federal agents)
- Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (prisoner must follow each step of administrative remedy procedure to exhaust)
- Yousef v. Reno, 254 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion requirement applied to Bivens actions)
- Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (futility of administrative remedies does not excuse exhaustion)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard for granting in forma pauperis on appeal requires a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument)