Majid vs. Berryhill, No. 06-6116 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS October 24, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court M O H A MM ED A BD U L M A JID, Petitioner-A ppellant, v. Nos. 06-6116 and 06-6153 (W .D. of Okla.) U N ITED STA TES M A RSH A L BERRY HILL, UN ITED STATES M A RSH A L SU ED O , SH ER IFF JOHN W HETSEL, OK LAH OM A C OU NTY DETENTION CENTER, D R. H A RV EY , N U RSE R ITA , NU RSE DA NIEL, NU RSE SUE, N U RSE M ELIN D A PER RY , C APTA IN BO BB Y C AR SO N , SERGEANT CHEETUM , LIEUTEN AN T LOG AN , OFFICER BELL, OFFICER BLOOM ER, and O FFICER YIELG IN G , (D.C. No. CIV-05-8-M ) Respondents-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before TA CH A, Chief Judge, HA RTZ, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges. ** * This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material (continued...) Petitioner-Appellant M ohammed M ajid, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U .S. 388 (1971) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He also appeals the district court s denial of his motion to proceed on this appeal without prepayment of fees. Because M ajid did not exhaust available administrative remedies as required under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), we AFFIRM the district court. I. Background M ajid is a federal inmate serving a 57-month sentence for interstate travel in aid of racketeering, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3). The instant lawsuit is the result of his alleged mistreatment by federal and Oklahoma state officials during his pretrial incarceration at the Oklahoma County Detention Center (OCDC). M ajid alleges that he was (1) denied requested medical treatment, (2) denied his First Amendment right to practice Islam, (3) retaliated against for the exercise of his First A mendment rights, (4) denied access to the courts, and (5) verbally harassed by OCDC officials and two U.S. M arshals supervising his incarceration in the state facility. The district court dismissed all M ajid s claims for failure to ** (...continued) assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 1 W e construe M ajid s appellate filings liberally. See Cum mings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir. 1998). exhaust available administrative remedies at OCDC. M ajid now asks this court to overturn that dismissal and to allow his appeal to proceed in form a pauperis. II. Discussion Exhaustion of available administrative remedies is required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for all prisoner lawsuits with respect to prison conditions, including alleged constitutional violations. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Kikumura v. Osagie, 461 F.3d 1269, 1281 (10th Cir. 2006). The district court properly noted that (1) O CDC administrative relief was available to M ajid as demonstrated by his successful use of OCDC grievance procedures on at least one prior occasion, and (2) M ajid s contention that OCDC relief was not available to him was without supporting evidence. W e agree that M ajid has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth by the district court in the magistrate judge s report and recommendation, we A FFIRM the district court s dismissal of M ajid s § 1983 and Bivens claims for failure to exhaust. W e further AFFIRM the district court s denial of M ajid s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and DENY his motion to proceed in form a pauperis. Entered for the Court Timothy M . Tymkovich Circuit Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
