Knox v. Pink-Roberts , 369 F. App'x 933 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 22, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
ANTONE L. KNOX,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-7082
v. (E.D. Oklahoma)
CRYSTA PINK-ROBERTS; DEBBIE (D.C. No. 6:08-CV-00195-RAW-SPS)
ALDRIDGE, NEAMYRA RIDDLE;
AMY THOMAS; KEITH
SHERWOOD; DARREL WILSON;
KRISTI MUNHOLLAND; JESSICA
SMITH; RON PARKER; MARTY
SIRMON; LINDA MORGAN; KEVIN
WARD; JUSTIN JONES; BOBBY
BOONE; DENNIS COTNER;
CHESTER MASON; JUDY
BREWSTER; DOYLE STEWART;
DR. MILLER; DAVID ORMAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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 appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Antone L. Knox appeals an order of the district court dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust, denying his request for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction, and denying his motion to amend.
Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
In what the district court appropriately described as “an extremely long and
rambling complaint,” Knox asserted multiple claims against numerous staff
members of the Oklahoma State Prison in McAlester, Oklahoma. The district
court concluded that because the record conclusively established Knox had failed
to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, the defendants were entitled to
dismissal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Upon de novo review, this court
affirms the district court’s order of dismissal for substantially those grounds set
out in the district court’s order dated September 1, 2009. Jernigan v. Stuchell,
304 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that dismissals pursuant to
§ 1997e(a) are reviewed de novo). Furthermore, in light of the conclusory nature
of Knox’s rambling complaint, the district court was well within its discretion to
deny injunctive relief. Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1493 (10th Cir.
1991). Likewise, because Knox’s motion to file an amended complaint utterly
-2-
failed to demonstrate how the proposed amendments related back to the original
complaint and failed to make any showing the proposed amendments would not
be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust, the district court properly denied
Knox’s motion to amend. Peterson v. Grisham, 594 F.3d 723, 731 (10th Cir.
2010) (“Although we review a district court’s decision to deny a motion to amend
. . . for abuse of discretion, when the denial is based on a determination that
amendment would be futile, our review for abuse of discretion includes de novo
review of the legal basis for the finding of futility.” (quotation omitted)).
The order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. Knox’s motion titled
“Notice of Emergency Official Complaint Against Chief Circuit Judge Robert H.
Henry,” which this court construes as a motion seeking recusal of Chief Judge
Henry, is DENIED AS MOOT given that Chief Judge Henry is not a member of
the panel randomly assigned to dispose of this appeal. All other pending motions
are DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-