eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-09

Leslie Redmond v. E. Kern ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-40338      Document: 00515581257           Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/28/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 28, 2020
No. 19-40338
Summary Calendar                           Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Leslie Redmond,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Richard Dortch, Lieutenant; D. Barnett; T. Satcher; D.
Spann; FNU Tenner; Donald Hadnot,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CV-70
USDC No. 1:15-CV-71
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Leslie Redmond, federal prisoner # 31204-177, filed a pro se Bivens
suit, asserting the following claims against various federal prison officials: (1)
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40338            Document: 00515581257              Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/28/2020
No. 19-40338
FNU Tenner acted with bias during Redmond’s disciplinary hearing; (2)
Terry Satcher and Dwayne Spann retaliated against Redmond for filing
grievances; (3) Richard Dortch retaliated against Redmond by falsifying an
exaggerated report; and (4) Donald Hadnot acted with deliberate
indifference to Redmond’s health and safety and committed a malicious
assault against Redmond. 1 The district court granted summary judgment to
the prison officials, concluding that Redmond had failed to exhaust his
available administrative remedies. We affirm.
I
We review summary judgment de novo. Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp.
Sys.,
    321 F.3d 503
    , 507 (5th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is appropriate
only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is
no genuine issue for trial “[i]f the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a
rational trier of act to find for the non-moving party.” Kipps v. Caillier,
    197 F.3d 765
    , 768 (5th Cir. 1999). We review de novo the dismissal of a federal
prisoner’s Bivens complaint for failure to exhaust. Carbe v. Lappin,
    492 F.3d 325
    , 327 (5th Cir. 2007).
II
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner to
exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing suit. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a); see Porter v. Nussle,
    534 U.S. 516
    , 524 (2002) (“Federal prisoners
suing under Bivens . . . must first exhaust inmate grievance procedures just as
1
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388 
       (1971).
According to Redmond’s complaint, D. Barnett is a supervising lieutenant, but
Redmond did not name D. Barnett as a defendant in his complaint.
2
Case: 19-40338     Document: 00515581257           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/28/2020
No. 19-40338
state prisoners must exhaust administrative processes prior to instituting a
§ 1983 suit.”). Exhaustion of administrative remedies “means using all steps
that the agency holds out, and doing so properly.” Woodford v. Ngo,
    548 U.S. 81
    , 90 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Redmond is subject to the Federal Bureau of Prison’s four-step
grievance process. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13–15. To meet the exhaustion
requirement for his Bivens claims, Redmond must have exhausted all four
steps: (1) informal resolution of the issue with prison staff; (2) formal
administrative remedy request to the Warden; (3) appeal to the Regional
Director; and (4) national appeal to the Office of General Counsel.
    Id. A review of 
    Redmond’s administrative grievance forms shows that
Redmond failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to all his claims.
For his claims against Tenner, Satcher, Spann, and Dortch, Redmond never
submitted any administrative appeals or remedies that name or mention
these defendants. As to the remaining claim against Hadnot, while Redmond
did submit an administrative appeal regarding his alleged assault by Hadnot,
Redmond did not fully exhaust his remedies because he never completed the
fourth and final step of appeal to the Office of General Counsel. The district
court properly dismissed these claims for failure to exhaust.
For all these reasons, we AFFIRM summary judgment for the federal
officers.
3