Vreeland v. Schwartz, 19-1316

Background

Pro se Colorado prisoner Delmart Vreeland sued several CDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging interference with legal mail, denial of phone-recordings, job retaliation, threats, and transfer; earlier appeal preserved only First Amendment retaliation claims.
On remand Vreeland filed an amended complaint asserting four claims (labeled 1, 3, 4, 5) arising from events between August–November 2010 and 2013: (1) legal-mail reading (Aug 2010); (3) denial of access to jailhouse call recordings (summer 2013); (4) firing/reassignment from a unit-clerk job (Aug 2013); (5) threats and immediate job loss/transfer (Nov 2013).
The district court dismissed claim 1 as time-barred, dismissed one claim as untimely earlier, and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims principally for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of evidence of an adverse action or causation.
Vreeland argued fraudulent concealment as to claim 1; for claims 3 and 4 he argued CDOC grievance rules did not require explicit "retaliation" language and that case managers told him not to file retaliation grievances (rendering remedies unavailable); for claim 5 he argued defendants orchestrated his transfer.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court: claim 1 time-barred; claim 3 unexhausted (grievances failed to alert prison to retaliation and unavailability not proved); claim 4 failed for lack of record showing an adverse action that would chill ordinary speech; claim 5 failed for lack of causation (transfer attributable to CDOC realignment). The appeal of the costs award was dismissed as waived.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claim 1: Timeliness / fraudulent concealment	Schwartz misled Vreeland during prior suit, concealing her involvement so the statute of limitations should be tolled	Vreeland knew of Schwartz’s conduct in Aug 2010 and had two years to sue; amendment denial in earlier case was correct	Dismissed as time-barred; fraudulent-concealment claim meritless because allegations show Vreeland knew of Schwartz’s actions in 2010
Claim 3: Exhaustion and unavailability (phone recordings)	Grievance procedures don’t require the word "retaliation"; case manager told him not to allege retaliation, making exhaustion unavailable	Grievances focused on regulatory denial (not retaliation) and contain no notice of retaliatory motive; no evidence officials prevented grievance	Affirmed: grievance did not put CDOC on notice of retaliation; unavailability not established because plaintiff produced no evidence of threats/intimidation
Claim 4: Exhaustion / adverse-action (job reassignment)	Defendants prevented grieving the firing and reassigned Vreeland to a lesser job in retaliation	He was not fired; he remained a unit worker and was re-assigned; plaintiff’s declaration is uncorroborated	Affirmed: appellate court rejects district court's characterization of plaintiff’s affidavit as conclusory but finds plaintiff produced no record showing an adverse action that would chill an ordinary person’s speech
Claim 5: Causation of transfer and job loss	Defendants threatened to remove job/single-cell and transfer him; they used the Close Custody Realignment process as a pretext to transfer him	Transfer resulted from CDOC custody-score recalculation and statewide realignment decisions, independent of local staff	Affirmed: record shows transfers due to CDOC realignment; plaintiff’s causation theory speculative/forfeited and unsupported by admissible evidence
Costs award	District court erred awarding costs to CDOC	Vreeland failed to timely seek district-court review under Rule 54(d)(1)	Costs challenge dismissed as waived for failure to follow Rule 54(d)(1)

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (level of detail required in grievances is for the prison grievance system to define)
Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (prison officials who render administrative remedies "unavailable" may excuse exhaustion)
May v. Segovia, 929 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2019) (elements required to prove grievance process was made unavailable)
Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., 538 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of statute-of-limitations dismissal at pleading stage)
Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for exhaustion defenses)
Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard when nonmovant lacks evidence)
Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (definition of "adverse action" under First Amendment retaliation)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (objective video evidence may eliminate genuine factual disputes on summary judgment)