Augustus v. US Penitentiary

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 2000
Docket99-41178
StatusUnpublished

This text of Augustus v. US Penitentiary (Augustus v. US Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Augustus v. US Penitentiary, (5th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

No. 99-41178 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41178 Summary Calendar

MOSES AUGUSTUS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY BEAUMONT, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CV-521 -------------------- June 27, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Moses Augustus, federal prisoner # 39301-066, argues that the

district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint based

on his failure to exhaust his prison administrative remedies before

seeking relief in federal court. Augustus argues that he was not

required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he was very

ill and he required immediate action by the district court.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 99-41178 -2-

Because Augustus sought injunctive relief and damages, he was

required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief

in federal court. See Wright v. Hollingsworth, 201 F.3d 663, 665

(5th Cir. 2000); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 886-87 (5th Cir.

1998).

Augustus filed his civil rights complaint in the district

court within two weeks of the alleged date that he was denied

medical treatment. Although Augustus alleged that prison officials

would not entertain his grievances, the record reflects that he

failed to provide the administrators with an adequate opportunity

to do so.

The district court did not err in dismissing Augustus’

complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 295-96 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.

denied, 119 S. Ct. 1809 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Underwood v. Wilson
151 F.3d 292 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Whitley v. Hunt
158 F.3d 882 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Wright v. Hollingsworth
201 F.3d 663 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Augustus v. US Penitentiary, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augustus-v-us-penitentiary-ca5-2000.