Clifford J. Schuett v. L. LaRiva

Eighth Circuit

Clifford J. Schuett v. L. LaRiva

697 F. App'x 475

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

Docket17-1210

StatusUnpublished

This text of 697 F. App'x 475 (Clifford J. Schuett v. L. LaRiva) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clifford J. Schuett v. L. LaRiva, 697 F. App'x 475 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se civil-rights action, federal prisoner Clifford Schuett appeals after the District Court 1 dismissed his lawsuit without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He has also moved for appointment of counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we conclude that dismissal was appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a prisoner may bring a federal action challenging prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)); King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (reviewing de novo a dismissal under § 1997e(a)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 966, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Under the plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.”); see also McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“[A] claim falling within the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must nonetheless meet the mandatory exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).”).

We affirm the District Court and deny Schuett’s motion for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, partially adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota,

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

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se civil-rights action, federal prisoner Clifford Schuett appeals after the District Court 1 dismissed his lawsuit without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He has also moved for appointment of counsel.

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and we conclude that dismissal was appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a prisoner may bring a federal action challenging prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)); King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (reviewing de novo a dismissal under § 1997e(a)), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 966, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Under the plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.”); see also McAlphin v. Toney, 375 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“[A] claim falling within the imminent danger exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must nonetheless meet the mandatory exhaustion requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).”).

We affirm the District Court and deny Schuett’s motion for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, partially adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

697 F. App'x 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-j-schuett-v-l-lariva-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack