Gomez v. Hill

Fifth Circuit

Gomez v. Hill

87 F. App'x 374

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 2004

Docket03-10813

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 F. App'x 374 (Gomez v. Hill) 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

Gomez v. Hill, 87 F. App'x 374 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Francisco Gomez, Texas prisoner # 742398, appeals from the dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, Gomez asserts that he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because: (1) he was seeking monetary damages, which *375 were not available from the administrative process; (2) he should be excused from fulfilling the exhaustion requirement due to the fact that his administrative grievance was erroneously denied as untimely; and (3) he fulfilled the exhaustion requirement by submitting informal complaints to various prison officials. We review the district court’s dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) de novo. See Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999).

Gomez’s first two arguments lack merit under applicable precedent. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (exhaustion is required even where money damages are sought); id. at 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (“we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements”). His third argument relies solely upon Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir.1999), which is not applicable to the instant case because, unlike in Wyatt, the instant alleged constitutional violation did not occur prior to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Gomez also contends that the district court erred by dismissing his instant lawsuit without conducting a Spears 1 hearing. Because additional factual development would not have aided Gomez in fulfilling the exhaustion requirement, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his lawsuit without conducting a Spears hearing.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).

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

PER CURIAM. *

Francisco Gomez, Texas prisoner # 742398, appeals from the dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, Gomez asserts that he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because: (1) he was seeking monetary damages, which *375 were not available from the administrative process; (2) he should be excused from fulfilling the exhaustion requirement due to the fact that his administrative grievance was erroneously denied as untimely; and (3) he fulfilled the exhaustion requirement by submitting informal complaints to various prison officials. We review the district court’s dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) de novo. See Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999).

Gomez’s first two arguments lack merit under applicable precedent. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001) (exhaustion is required even where money damages are sought); id. at 741 n. 6, 121 S.Ct. 1819 (“we will not read futility or other exceptions into statutory exhaustion requirements”). His third argument relies solely upon Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir.1999), which is not applicable to the instant case because, unlike in Wyatt, the instant alleged constitutional violation did not occur prior to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Gomez also contends that the district court erred by dismissing his instant lawsuit without conducting a Spears 1 hearing. Because additional factual development would not have aided Gomez in fulfilling the exhaustion requirement, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his lawsuit without conducting a Spears hearing.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

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.

1

. Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. App'x 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-hill-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack