Introduction

In Wiggins v. Hatch, Nos. 24-2159 & 24-2160 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the New Mexico district court’s partial dismissal and partial grant of summary judgment in a pro se prisoner’s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The appeal primarily turned on whether the plaintiff, Matthew Wiggins, exhausted administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for his religious diet claim—specifically, the alleged failure to provide halal meals.

The case arrives after a complicated procedural history, including two identical district court filings later consolidated, and screening followed by a Martinez report. While Wiggins raised multiple claims (disciplinary proceedings and religious discrimination), the Tenth Circuit held that only his religious diet claim was properly before it on appeal; the remainder were forfeited by inadequate briefing. The central issue: whether Wiggins’ evidence—postage charges from his inmate account—sufficed to show he appealed denials of his grievances, thereby completing the New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) grievance process.

The court’s bottom line is a reiteration and sharpening of PLRA principles in this circuit: full, step-by-step compliance is required; “substantial compliance” is not enough; and generic proof of mailing costs, without concrete linkage to grievance appeals, does not carry a prisoner’s burden to defeat an exhaustion defense. The panel also addressed several ancillary procedural arguments, including the “firm waiver rule,” liberal construction for pro se litigants, and requests for injunctive and punitive relief.

Summary of the Opinion

• The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that Wiggins failed to exhaust administrative remedies on his halal meals claim because, although he filed grievances, he did not appeal the denials—an essential step in NMCD’s three-tier process.
• The court rejected Wiggins’ contention that postage charges proved he had mailed grievance appeals. The charges lacked specificity to demonstrate that he actually appealed the denials at issue.
• All other claims were deemed abandoned on appeal because Wiggins’ opening brief did not specifically challenge the district court’s rulings on those issues.
• The panel declined to apply the “firm waiver rule” to bar consideration of Wiggins’ arguments where he failed to make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD), but it nonetheless affirmed on the merits.
• The court rejected additional arguments, including challenges related to earlier filing-fee issues, and denied requests for injunctive and punitive relief based on the record presented. Qualified immunity was not relevant to the appeal.
• The court granted Wiggins leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal but denied motions to supplement the record and to amend briefs based on new evidence.

Importantly, the panel noted that its order is non-precedential and may be cited only for persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• PLRA Exhaustion Framework
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a): Requires prisoners to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing suit about prison conditions.
  • Greer v. Dowling, 947 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2020): Reaffirms the mandatory nature of exhaustion.
  • Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002): “Substantial compliance” is not enough; the inmate must complete the process.
  • Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 2011): Establishes burden shifting. Once defendants show non-exhaustion, the inmate must prove remedies were unavailable.
  • Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir. 2010): Remedies are unavailable when officials “prevent, thwart, or hinder” access to the grievance process.
• Standards of Review & Pro Se Principles
  • McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001): De novo review applies both to dismissals for failure to state a claim and to summary judgment.
  • Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1291 n.1 (10th Cir. 2023): Courts liberally construe pro se filings but do not serve as the litigant’s advocate.
  • Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005): Pro se litigants must follow procedural rules like any other party.
  • Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020): Issues not properly raised in the opening brief are abandoned or waived.
• Magistrate Proceedings and Waiver
  • Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579–80 (10th Cir. 1999): A district court’s de novo review despite inadequate objections does not bar application of the firm waiver rule on appeal.
  • United States v. Walker, 918 F.3d 1134, 1153 (10th Cir. 2019): The appellate court has discretion not to apply firm waiver to consider arguments.
• Martinez Report Procedure
  • Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978), and Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d 1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 1987): Authorize district courts to order prison officials to prepare a report with affidavits and records to ascertain the factual and legal bases of a prisoner’s claims.
• Remedies
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (injunctive relief): The opinion quotes statutory text limiting injunctive relief unless certain conditions are met (as applied in the panel’s analysis).
  • Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011): Applied to deny injunctive relief where conditions in § 1983 were not met.
  • Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 879 (10th Cir. 2001): Punitive damages require conduct motivated by evil motive or reckless indifference to federally protected rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in three principal steps: scope of appeal, PLRA exhaustion, and ancillary procedural arguments.

1. Scope of the Appeal—Abandonment

   The panel began by narrowing the issues. Wiggins’ opening brief primarily argued the halal meals dispute; he did not substantively challenge the district court’s merits rulings on other claims. Under Sawyers, those unbriefed issues were deemed abandoned. The court would therefore review only the religious discrimination claim premised on halal meals, along with certain case-management challenges susceptible to liberal construction.

2. PLRA Exhaustion—Failure to Appeal Grievance Denials

   New Mexico’s three-step process requires: (1) an informal complaint, (2) a formal grievance, and (3) an appeal from the grievance decision. Affidavits from NMCD grievance officers (Maxine Montoya, Cheryl Frazier, Janine Rodriguez, and Joshua Sigala) established that Wiggins filed grievances on halal meals in November 2016, March 2021, April 2021, and May 2023, but he did not file appeals after those grievances were denied.

   Wiggins attempted to counter with inmate account records showing postage charges, arguing these expenditures evidenced mailed appeals. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that this evidence lacked the specificity needed to prove that any particular charge corresponded to a grievance appeal within the NMCD process. Under Jernigan, “substantial compliance” does not suffice; the inmate must complete all steps, including the appeal. Because defendants demonstrated non-exhaustion, the burden shifted to Wiggins under Tuckel to show that administrative remedies were “unavailable,” for example, because officials thwarted his efforts (Little). He did not carry that burden.

   Result: The halal meals claim was properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust.

3. Procedural Posture—Firm Waiver, PFRD Objections, and Relief

   Although the district court found Wiggins’ objections to the magistrate judge’s PFRD insufficiently specific, it nonetheless conducted a de novo review—an approach consistent with Vega and within its discretion. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit elected not to apply the firm waiver rule to bar consideration of arguments that were pressed, but it ultimately affirmed on the merits.

   The panel also rejected claims of error tied to a prior filing-fee mishap, noting the district court cured the problem and that later amendments—not the original complaint—were operative. Requests for injunctive and punitive relief failed on the existing record: Wiggins neither satisfied the conditions for injunctive relief cited in § 1983 and Knox nor presented evidence of the kind of egregious conduct that would warrant punitive damages under Searles. Qualified immunity played no role in the rulings below and was therefore irrelevant on appeal.

Impact and Practical Significance

• Strictness of PLRA Exhaustion: The opinion reinforces that completion of all grievance steps—including appeals—is mandatory. “Substantial compliance” remains a non-starter in the Tenth Circuit. Prisoners must be prepared to prove completion with concrete, record-linked documentation.
• Evidence Required to Prove Exhaustion: Generic postage or mailing costs are not adequate proof that an appeal was actually filed. Inmates (and counsel) should retain copies of appeal forms, grievance numbers, date-stamped receipts, mail logs referencing the specific grievance appeal, or other traceable documentation linking mailings to the appeal step.
• Burdens at Summary Judgment: Defendants can carry their initial burden on non-exhaustion with affidavits and grievance logs (often via Martinez reports). The burden then shifts: plaintiffs must show unavailability with specific facts (e.g., refusals to accept filings, returned forms, explicit obstruction), not general assertions.
• Appellate Preservation: The court drew a clear line between discretionary leniency on the firm waiver rule and strict enforcement of abandonment on appeal. Even pro se litigants must squarely challenge adverse rulings in their opening briefs to preserve issues.
• Remedies: The panel’s treatment of injunctive and punitive relief underscores the need to develop a factual record tailored to the standards for extraordinary remedies. Conclusory requests will fail.
• Persuasive, Not Binding: Because this is an unpublished order, it is not binding precedent. Nonetheless, its concrete application of PLRA doctrine—especially the evidentiary insufficiency of postage charges—will be persuasive in district courts within the circuit.
• Religious Diet Litigation: Substantive allegations about religious meals (e.g., halal, kosher) cannot proceed to merits in federal court without completed, provable administrative exhaustion. Corrections agencies and vendors (like food service contractors) can, and likely will, continue to rely on grievance records to defeat claims at the threshold.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• PLRA Exhaustion: A federal law requiring prisoners to use and finish the prison’s grievance process before suing in federal court. If you skip a step—like failing to appeal a grievance denial—your claim will be dismissed without prejudice.
• “Substantial Compliance”: Doing “most” of the process does not count. The PLRA requires full completion of every required step.
• “Unavailable” Remedies: If prison officials block access to the grievance system (e.g., refuse to give forms, ignore filings, or otherwise thwart attempts), exhaustion may be excused. But the prisoner must provide specific evidence of such obstruction.
• Martinez Report: A court-ordered report prepared by prison officials in pro se prisoner cases, including affidavits and records, to help the court evaluate the factual and legal basis of claims early in litigation.
• PFRD and Firm Waiver Rule: A magistrate judge issues a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD). Parties must file specific objections. Failure to do so may waive appellate review (“firm waiver rule”), though appellate courts have discretion to overlook waiver in some circumstances.
• Abandonment on Appeal: If an appellant’s opening brief does not adequately challenge a ruling, that issue is treated as abandoned and will not be reviewed.
• Dismissal Without Prejudice: The case is dismissed in a way that allows the plaintiff to refile later—typically after completing the required grievance steps.
• Injunctive vs. Punitive Relief: Injunctive relief orders someone to do or stop doing something; it requires meeting specific statutory or equitable criteria. Punitive damages punish extreme misconduct; they require proof of evil motive or reckless indifference to rights.

Conclusion

Wiggins v. Hatch is a pointed reaffirmation of the Tenth Circuit’s strict approach to PLRA exhaustion. The court held that filing grievances without appealing denials fails the exhaustion requirement, and that generic postage charges do not substitute for concrete proof that appeals were actually filed. While the panel exercised discretion not to enforce the firm waiver rule rigidly, it insisted on disciplined appellate practice: claims not clearly briefed are abandoned. The decision also illustrates how Martinez reports and grievance records can effectively support summary judgments on exhaustion grounds.

For prisoners litigating conditions-of-confinement and religious exercise claims, the message is unmistakable: complete the grievance process, keep meticulous records linking each step to specific grievances, and be prepared to rebut a non-exhaustion defense with detailed evidence of unavailability if applicable. For courts and practitioners, the opinion offers a practical template for evaluating exhaustion disputes and demonstrates the continued vitality of Tenth Circuit precedents such as Jernigan, Tuckel, and Little. Although non-precedential, the decision carries persuasive weight and is likely to influence how district courts within the circuit assess the sufficiency of exhaustion evidence, particularly where documentary proof is thin or generic.