Chambers v. Coplan

First Circuit

Chambers v. Coplan

82 F. App'x 710

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 24, 2003

Docket02-2237, 02-2586

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. App'x 710 (Chambers v. Coplan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Coplan, 82 F. App'x 710 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the record and the appellant’s briefs in these consolidated appeals, we affirm the judgments below.

*711 The appellant appeals from the denial of a preliminary injunction and from the dismissal of his suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The preliminary injunction was properly denied because the appellant failed to show likely success on the merits. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11 (1st Cir.1993).

The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). The appellant argues that the complaint should not have been dismissed because he exhausted administrative remedies while the suit was pending. We have held, however, that belated exhaustion will not save a complaint from dismissal. Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.2002). Finally, the appellant’s assertion that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable to his claims is untenable. Exhaustion is mandatory for all actions concerning prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).

Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

After carefully considering the record and the appellant’s briefs in these consolidated appeals, we affirm the judgments below.

*711 The appellant appeals from the denial of a preliminary injunction and from the dismissal of his suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The preliminary injunction was properly denied because the appellant failed to show likely success on the merits. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11 (1st Cir.1993).

The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because the appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). The appellant argues that the complaint should not have been dismissed because he exhausted administrative remedies while the suit was pending. We have held, however, that belated exhaustion will not save a complaint from dismissal. Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31 (1st Cir.2002). Finally, the appellant’s assertion that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable to his claims is untenable. Exhaustion is mandatory for all actions concerning prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).

Affirmed. Loe. R. 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-coplan-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack