Proper Exhaustion Requires Proof of Appeal: Tenth Circuit Confirms Generic Postage Charges Cannot Substantiate PLRA Exhaustion in Religious-Diet Claims

Proper Exhaustion Requires Proof of Appeal: Tenth Circuit Confirms Generic Postage Charges Cannot Substantiate PLRA Exhaustion in Religious-Diet Claims

Case: Wiggins v. Hatch, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Nos. 24-2159 & 24-2160)

Date: October 15, 2025

Panel: Chief Judge Holmes, Judges Tymkovich, and Moritz (Order and Judgment)

Precedential Status: Nonprecedential, but citable for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1

Introduction

Matthew Wiggins, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from (1) prison disciplinary proceedings and (2) alleged religious discrimination tied to the prison’s failure to provide him halal meals. Two identical suits were filed and later consolidated in the District of New Mexico. The district court, after ordering Martinez reports, granted a motion to dismiss in part and for partial summary judgment, dismissing the religious-diet claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and disposing of the remaining claims on pleading and summary-judgment grounds.

On appeal, Wiggins primarily pressed the merits of his halal-meal claim, while not meaningfully challenging the district court’s rulings on his other claims. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that Wiggins failed to properly exhaust because he did not complete the final appeal step of the grievance process, and that his generic postage charges did not prove that he actually filed any grievance appeals. The court also addressed and rejected several case-handling and remedial arguments (injunctive and punitive relief), and granted Wiggins leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Scope of Appeal: Because Wiggins did not raise or develop arguments concerning the other claims dismissed or decided on summary judgment, he abandoned those issues. Only his religious discrimination claim concerning halal meals (dismissed for non-exhaustion) and certain case-management complaints remained for review.
  • Exhaustion Holding: Affirmed. Under the PLRA, proper exhaustion requires compliance with all steps of the prison’s grievance process, including an appeal. Affidavits in the Martinez report showed Wiggins filed four grievances on halal-meal issues (2016, March 2021, April 2021, May 2023), each denied, and he did not appeal any of them. Generic postage charges from his inmate account did not establish that he actually mailed grievance appeals or that remedies were unavailable.
  • Firm Waiver Rule / PFRD Objections: Although Wiggins’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD) were nonspecific, the district court conducted de novo review anyway. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit exercised its discretion not to apply the firm waiver rule to bar consideration of the arguments Wiggins attempted to make, but still affirmed on the merits.
  • Other Challenges: The appellate court found no reversible error in the district court’s handling of filings, the earlier (later cured) fee-dismissal, or the denial of injunctive and punitive relief. Qualified immunity was not a basis for the district court’s decision and was irrelevant on appeal.
  • Disposition: Affirmed. In forma pauperis status granted. Motions to supplement the record and to amend briefs based on new evidence denied.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

  • PLRA Exhaustion:
    • 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) – Requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies prior to filing suit about prison conditions.
    • Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) – Proper exhaustion demands completion of all steps; substantial compliance is insufficient.
    • Tuckel v. Grover, 660 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 2011) – Non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense; after defendants show failure to exhaust, burden shifts to the inmate to demonstrate unavailability of remedies. Remedies are unavailable where officials prevent, thwart, or hinder use of the process (quoting Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir. 2010)).
    • Greer v. Dowling, 947 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2020) – Reiterates PLRA’s exhaustion requirement.
  • Case-Management and Procedural Principles:
    • 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 require prison officials to file a Martinez report to clarify factual and legal bases of pro se prisoner claims.
    • McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001) – De novo review applies to Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals and summary judgments.
    • Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) – Pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules as other parties.
    • Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir. 2020) – Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived, as are inadequately presented arguments.
    • Vega v. Suthers, 195 F.3d 573, 579-80 (10th Cir. 1999) – A district court’s decision to conduct de novo review despite deficient objections does not preclude applying the firm waiver rule on appeal.
    • United States v. Walker, 918 F.3d 1134, 1153 (10th Cir. 2019) – Appellate court retains discretion whether to apply the firm waiver rule.
  • Remedies:
    • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – The panel cites the statute to caution against injunctive relief absent certain conditions, and further relies on Tenth Circuit authority to deny injunction on the record presented.
    • Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) – Injunctive relief denied where prerequisites not met.
    • Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 879 (10th Cir. 2001) – Punitive damages require conduct motivated by evil motive or reckless/callous indifference to federally protected rights.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s analysis proceeds from straightforward PLRA principles. Exhaustion is mandatory and requires adherence to the prison’s established multi-step grievance procedure. For New Mexico inmates, that means: (1) filing an informal complaint; (2) filing a formal inmate grievance; and (3) appealing after the grievance decision. The record—via affidavits from grievance officials Maxine Montoya, Cheryl Frazier, Janine Rodriguez, and Joshua Sigala included in the Martinez report—showed Wiggins filed four grievances about halal meals over several years; each was denied; none was appealed.

That evidentiary showing satisfied defendants’ burden on the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion. The burden then shifted to Wiggins to demonstrate that administrative remedies were “unavailable”—for example, because officials prevented or thwarted his appeals. Wiggins argued he “did his best” and submitted evidence of inmate account postage charges to show he mailed appeals. But the court agreed with the magistrate judge that generic postage entries did not specifically tie to any grievance appeal or otherwise establish that appeals were actually submitted or that prison officials hindered the process. Without specific, appeal-linked proof or evidence of thwarting, Wiggins at most showed substantial compliance, which is legally insufficient under Jernigan.

On procedural issues, the panel emphasized two distinct waiver concepts:

  • Issue Abandonment on Appeal: Because Wiggins did not challenge the district court’s merits rulings on his non-diet claims in his opening brief, those issues were abandoned (Sawyers).
  • Firm Waiver Rule (PFRD Objections): Although Wiggins’s objections to the PFRD were nonspecific, and although the district court alternatively conducted de novo review, the Tenth Circuit exercised discretion not to enforce the firm waiver rule and considered the arguments Wiggins did present. Even with that latitude, the court concluded the record compelled affirmance.

Finally, as to remedies, the court found no basis for injunctive relief on the current record and reiterated the demanding standard for punitive damages (Searles). Qualified immunity was not material because the district court did not rely on it.

Impact and Practical Significance

While nonprecedential, this decision underscores several pragmatic rules that will inform litigation in the Tenth Circuit:

  • Proof of Appeals Matters: In PLRA cases, inmates must be prepared to document completion of the final appeal step. Generic mail or postage entries are too indefinite to carry the burden. Copies of appeal forms, grievance numbers, dated receipts, mail logs, or confirmation responses can be decisive.
  • “Unavailability” Requires Specific Evidence: To overcome a non-exhaustion defense, litigants must present concrete evidence that officials thwarted or prevented appeals—e.g., refusals to issue forms, returned or ignored appeals, or other documented impediments.
  • Religious-Diet Claims Are Not Exempt from Exhaustion: Claims alleging lack of halal or other religious diets are “prison conditions” and must satisfy § 1997e(a) before reaching the merits.
  • Pro Se Is Not a Pass on Procedure: The court reiterates that pro se litigants must follow the same rules as represented parties, including making specific objections to magistrate recommendations and preserving issues in an opening brief.
  • Role of Martinez Reports: Affidavits and records in a Martinez report can be outcome-determinative on exhaustion and other threshold issues, especially when the plaintiff’s contrary evidence is nonspecific.
  • Vendor Defendants and PLRA: Even where private food-service vendors are involved, the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to suits about prison conditions.
  • Remedies Are Evidence-Driven: Injunctive relief and punitive damages require record support beyond allegations; where the record is thin or silent (or claims are unexhausted), such relief will be denied.

Complex Concepts, Simplified

  • PLRA Exhaustion: Before suing in federal court about prison conditions, an inmate must use—and finish—the prison’s grievance process. “Finish” means every step, including the final appeal. Skipping the appeal step defeats the claim, at least for now.
  • Substantial Compliance vs. Proper Exhaustion: Doing “most” of the steps is not enough. Courts require “proper exhaustion,” meaning timely and compliant completion of all steps, as defined by the prison’s policy.
  • Unavailability of Remedies: An exception exists when the grievance system is truly not available. This is a high bar; the inmate must show that officials blocked or thwarted the process (e.g., refusing forms, rejecting filings without basis, or ignoring appeals).
  • Martinez Report: A report compiled by prison officials at a court’s request in pro se prisoner cases. It often includes affidavits and records (like grievance logs) to clarify what happened.
  • Firm Waiver Rule: If you do not file specific, timely objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation (PFRD), you may waive appellate review of those issues. Courts can decide to overlook the waiver, but they do not have to.
  • Issue Abandonment in Appeals: If you do not raise an issue in your opening brief, the appellate court treats it as abandoned and will not address it.
  • Injunctive and Punitive Relief: Injunctions require clear entitlement and evidence; punitive damages require proof of evil motive or reckless indifference to rights. These are not granted based on allegations alone.

Conclusion

Wiggins v. Hatch reinforces the bedrock PLRA principle that proper exhaustion requires completion of every step in the grievance process, including the final appeal, and that non-specific evidence—like mere postage charges—does not suffice to prove appeals were filed. The decision also models the Tenth Circuit’s firm stance on appellate procedure: pro se litigants must preserve issues in the opening brief and make specific objections to magistrate recommendations. On remedies, the court’s brief treatment confirms that injunctive and punitive relief require a solid evidentiary basis.

The practical takeaway for incarcerated litigants and counsel is clear: document the grievance appeal step meticulously, anticipate the Martinez report’s evidentiary role, and preserve issues properly for appeal. Absent such rigor, even potentially meritorious claims—like those involving religious diets—will not proceed past the PLRA’s threshold.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Comments