Hilliard vs. Ray, No. 06-7062 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS April 16, 2007 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court D A V ID L. H ILLIA RD , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 06-7062 (E.D. of Okla.) C HA RLES R AY , Warden, JO E CROW , W arehouse Supervisor, STEVE KAISER, Previous W arden, ROBERT EZELL, Assistant W arden, DA VIS CORR ECTION AL FACILITY M EDICAL DEPA RTM ENT, and O K LA H OMA D EPA RTM EN T OF CO RR ECTIONS, (D.C. No. CV -05-154-S) Defendants-Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before H E N RY, T YM KOV IC H, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges. ** David L. Hilliard, an Oklahoma state prisoner, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s dismissal of his claim against several prison officials for * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material 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. failure to provide adequate medical care. The district court dismissed Hilliard s complaint because Hilliard failed to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies as to all claims. To support the requirement that a prisoner s complaint must demonstrate total administrative exhaustion, the district court relied on Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1209 10 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding prisoners have the burden of pleading exhaustion) and Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181, 1189 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding prisoner must exhaust remedies on all claims presented). In Freeman v. Watkins, 479 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007), however, we recently recognized that the Supreme Court s decision in Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. 910 (2007), overruled both Steele and Ross. Accordingly, Hilliard need not show in his complaint that he has administratively exhausted his claims. See Jones, 127 S. Ct. at 921. Rather, the defendants may raise failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense. See id. Furthermore, Hilliard may proceed on his exhausted claims even if he has not exhausted others. See id. at 923 26. The district court also determined Hilliard s action was frivolous and should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e) (providing that when a court has authorized an action to proceed in form a pauperis, the court shall dismiss the case if it thereafter determines the action is frivolous). Because the court devoted the substance of its order to discussing our now-superceded precedent requiring an inmate to adequately plead exhaustion, we will treat the court s finding of -2- frivolousness as based on that precedent and not as an independent ground for dismissal. In light of the foregoing discussion, we V ACATE the district court s decision and REM AND for further proceedings in accordance with Jones v. Bock. W e remind Hilliard of his obligation, under the district court s order granting leave to proceed in form a pauperis, to continue making partial payments on the filing fee until the entire fee has been paid. Entered for the Court Timothy M . Tymkovich Circuit Judge -3-
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.
