Crowder v. University of Texas Medical

Fifth Circuit

Crowder v. University of Texas Medical

267 F. App'x 319

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 2008

Docket07-10108

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 F. App'x 319 (Crowder v. University of Texas Medical) 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

Crowder v. University of Texas Medical, 267 F. App'x 319 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Crowder, Texas prisoner #705564, moves for leave to proceed in *320 forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After the parties consented to proceed to final judgment before the magistrate judge (MJ), the MJ granted the defendant Dallas County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crowder’s § 1983 complaint. The MJ denied Crowder’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP in this court, Crowder is challenging the MJ’s certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Crowder’s complaint alleged that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference when they housed him with gang-affiliated inmates, failed to protect him from physical harm inflicted by inmates, and denied him adequate medical care, which he contends resulted in the permanent loss of vision in his left eye. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an inmate confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility may not bring an action under § 1983 with respect to prison conditions until all available administrative remedies are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and applies to all inmate suits regardless of the forms of relief sought. Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, Crowder’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. No further briefing is required.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *320 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Crowder, Texas prisoner #705564, moves for leave to proceed in *320 forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. After the parties consented to proceed to final judgment before the magistrate judge (MJ), the MJ granted the defendant Dallas County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crowder’s § 1983 complaint. The MJ denied Crowder’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP in this court, Crowder is challenging the MJ’s certification decision. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Crowder’s complaint alleged that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference when they housed him with gang-affiliated inmates, failed to protect him from physical harm inflicted by inmates, and denied him adequate medical care, which he contends resulted in the permanent loss of vision in his left eye. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an inmate confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility may not bring an action under § 1983 with respect to prison conditions until all available administrative remedies are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion is mandatory and applies to all inmate suits regardless of the forms of relief sought. Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, Crowder’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. No further briefing is required.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *320 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. App'x 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowder-v-university-of-texas-medical-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack