Guajardo v. Crain , 115 F. App'x 747 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50618
Conference Calendar
GUADALUPE GUAJARDO, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHRISTINA MELTON CRAIN, Chairman-Texas Board of Criminal
Justice; DOUG DRETKE, Director Correctional Institution
Division; BERTHA CORLEY, Supervisor, Ellis Unit Mail Room,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:04-CV-325-SS
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Guadalupe Guajardo, Jr., Texas inmate # 170864, proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
challenging the constitutionality of correspondence rules adopted
by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with respect to
prohibitions on inmate-to-inmate correspondence, decoration of
envelopes, and “homemade” envelopes. The district court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-50618
-2-
dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Guajardo contends that he was not required to pursue
administrative remedies because the Texas grievance system offers
no avenue to make a statewide challenge to prison rules. He also
argues that the district court should have required the
defendants to answer his complaint and that the district court
should have conducted an evidentiary hearing.
The exhaustion requirement is mandatory and applies to all
inmate suits regardless of the forms of relief sought and offered
through administrative remedies. Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863,
866 (5th Cir. 2003). The district court did not err in
dismissing Guajardo’s suit for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. See id.The district court was not required to obtain a response
from the defendants prior to dismissing Guajardo’s complaint.
See Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1998).
Nor was the district court required to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.
1998). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.