Williams v. Missildine

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41109
Summary Calendar
AUGUSTUS CONRAD WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOEY MISSILDINE, Correctional Officer III
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CV-184
--------------------
March 1, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Augustus Conrad Williams, TDCJ #615597, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to FED.
R. CIV. P. 41(b). The district court dismissed the complaint
when Williams failed to submit documentation of the exhaustion of
his administrative remedies. Because the dismissal occurred
after the expiration of the applicable limitations period, the
dismissal was effectively with prejudice. See Long v. Simmons,
77 F.3d 878, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1996). We will affirm such a
dismissal “only upon a showing of a clear record of delay or
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41109
-2-
contumacious conduct by the plaintiff,” and when “lesser
sanctions would not serve the best interest of justice.” Dorsey
v. Scott Wetzel Serv., Inc., 84 F.3d 170, 171 (5th Cir. 1996).
Williams first argues that he was not required to exhaust
his administrative remedies under Wright v. Hollingsworth, 201
F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 2000). However, on rehearing, we held that an
inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit regardless of the types of relief sought or available
through the administrative process. See Wright v. Hollingsworth,
260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
Williams also argues that he already sent documentation of
the exhaustion of his administrative remedies to the court. We
take judicial notice of the documentation Williams sent to the
district court as part of a prior 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
against this same defendant based on the same factual
allegations. Because both complaints involve the same parties
and the same claims, and judgment in the first action was
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, the instant
complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Marts
v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504 (5th Cir. 1997) (stating that dismissals
under the in forma pauperis statute “may serve as res judicata
for subsequent in forma pauperis filings”); see also Ellis v.
Amex Life Ins. Co., 211 F.3d 935, 937 (5th Cir. 2000); Nagle v.
Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 439 (5th Cir. 1987).
Therefore, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. See
Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.
1981).
No. 01-41109
-3-