The Tenth Circuit has rejected the argument that the grievance restrictions, alone, render administrative remedies unavailable. See Thomas, 609 F.3d at 1118; Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 269 (10th Cir. 2020).

The Tenth Circuit has rejected the argument that the grievance restrictions, alone, render administrative remedies unavailable. See Thomas, 609 F.3d at 1118; Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 269 (10th Cir. 2020).

An inmate fails to exhaust her administrative remedies when she makes procedural errors at the grievance and appeal stages - such as failing to comply with grievance-restriction requirements - and forfeits her opportunity to proceed with the grievance process. See Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 268-69 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding an inmate failed to properly exhaust his claims where his appeal to the administrative review authority was returned unanswered for, among other reasons, failing to comply with his grievance restrictions). “The PLRA clearly prohibits a district court from overlooking grievance procedures set by prison officials. . . . Even substantial compliance is insufficient.”

Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 270 (10th Cir. 2020)(disagreement over need for foam wedge or mattress); Dawson v. Archambeau, 763 Fed.Appx. 667, 672 (10th Cir. 2019)(disagreement over hepatitis C treatment); Rascon v. Douglas, 718 Fed.Appx. 587, 591 (10th Cir. 2017)(disagreement over pain medication); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010)(same).

An inmate fails to exhaust his administrative remedies when he makes procedural errors at the grievance stage and forfeits his opportunity to proceed with the grievance process. See Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 268-69 (10th Cir. 2020) (holding an inmate failed to properly exhaust his claims where his appeal to the administrative review authority was returned unanswered for raising additional issues not contained in the RTS).

A disagreement between an inmate and medical personnel over the course of treatment for pain does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim. Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 270 (10thCir. 2020)(disagreement over need for foam wedge or egg-crate mattress for acid reflux and orthopedic problems); Suro v. Tiona, 784 Fed.Appx. 566, 570 (10th Cir. 8/15/2019)(denial of traction therapy prescribed for plaintiff where plaintiff received other medical care); Rascon v. Douglas, 718 Fed.Appx. 587, 591 (10th Cir. 2017)(disagreement over pain medication); Burton v. Owens, 511 Fed.Appx. 385, 389-90 (5th Cir. 2013)(substitution of prescription-strength ibuprofen for prescribed Percoset); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010)(denial of plaintiff's desired medications for headaches and receiving others instead); Hairston v. McGuire, 57 Fed.Appx. 788, 789 (10th Cir. 2003)(complaint that plaintiff's pain medication was too weak and that plaintiff had to pay for it failed to state an Eighth Amendment violation); Barrow v. Clark, 2020 WL 1165846 *4 (D.Kan. 3/11/2020)(denial of Lyr

His disagreement with the actions of the medical personnel treating him, however, does not rise to the level of a constitutional claim. See Arriaga v. Roberts, 2020 WL 2037218 *1 (10th Cir. 4/28/2020)(disagreement over medication); Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 270 (10th Cir. 2020)(disagreement over need for foam wedge or mattress); Dawson v. Archambeau, 763 Fed.Appx. 667, 672 (10th Cir. 2019)(disagreement over hepatitis C treatment); Rascon v. Douglas, 718 Fed.Appx. 587, 591 (10th Cir. 2017)(disagreement over pain medication); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010)(same); see also Mata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 751 (10th Cir. 2005)("the medical judgment of the physician, even if grossly negligent, is not subject to second-guessing in the guise of an Eighth Amendment claim"). Defendant Jones is alleged to have slammed the cell door on plaintiff's hand.

A disagreement between an inmate and medical personnel over the course of treatment does not give rise to a deliberate indifference claim. Arriaga v. Roberts, 2020 WL 2037218 *1 (10th Cir. 4/28/2020)(disagreement over medication); Morris v. Fallin, 798 Fed.Appx. 261, 270 (10th Cir. 2020)(disagreement over need for foam wedge or mattress); Dawson v. Archambeau, 763 Fed.Appx. 667, 672 (10th Cir. 2019)(disagreement over hepatitis C treatment); Rascon v. Douglas, 718 Fed.Appx. 587, 591 (10th Cir. 2017)(disagreement over pain medication); Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010)(same); see also Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107 ("[T]he question whether an x-ray or additional diagnostic techniques or forms of treatment is indicated is a classic example of a matter for medical judgment. A medical decision not to order an x-ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment."); Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1234 (10th Cir. 2006)("a misdiagnosis, even if rising to the level of medical malpractice," is insufficient to demonstrate an Eighth Amendment claim); Mata, 427 F.3d at 751 ("the medical judgment of the physician, even if grossly negligent, is not subject to second-guessing in the guise of an Eighth Amendment claim"). On the basis of this authority,

The standard has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Tenth Circuit. See Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1192 (10th Cir. 2010) ("Disagreement with a doctor's particular method of treatment, without more, does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation."); Morris v. Fallin, 798 F. App'x 261, 270 (10th Cir. 2020) ("While Mr. Morris disputes their professional judgment, the Eighth Amendment does not grant inmates the right to a particular course of treatment."); Broadus v. Corr. Health Partners, Inc., 770 F. App'x 905, 909 (10th Cir. 2019) (inference of substantial risk of serious harm "cannot be drawn solely from evidence that a diagnosis or course of treatment was debated or debatable"); Gray v. Geo Grp., Inc., 727 F. App'x 940, 944 (10th Cir. 2018) ("Nor does mere disagreement with the type of medical care provided establish an Eighth Amendment violation."); Lemmons v. Houston, 633 F. App'x 664, 668 (10th Cir. 2015) (regardless of prisoner's repeated requests for specific medication, "the Eighth Amendment does not give him a right to a particular course of treatment"); Williams v. Allred, 611 F. App'x 491, 495 (10th Cir. 2015) (prisoner's disagreement with doctor's discontinuation of particular treatment does not state deliberate indifference claim); Adams v. Jones, 577 F. App'x 778, 780 (10