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

Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 02-2237
02-2586
RANDOLPH L. CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JANE COPLAN, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, in her
individual and official capacities, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellants.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Randolph L. Chambers on brief pro se.
December 24, 2003
Per Curiam. After carefully considering the record and the
appellant's briefs in these consolidated appeals, we affirm the
judgments below.
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 (2002).
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
-2-