Dedeaux v. MS Dept of Corr

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 00-60536
________________________
JOHN DEDEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN BEARRY,
Mississippi Department of Corrections Medical Director at Parchman;
JOHN DIAL, Doctor, Unit 42, Parchman; JONATHON CAMPBELL, Doctor,
Unit 42, Parchman, JAMES V. ANDERSON, Commissioner, Mississippi
Department of Corrections; WALTER BOOKER, Superintendent,
Mississippi Department of Corrections; JANICE PIERCE, RONNIE
FLEMMINGS, SERGEANT MOORE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(4:00-CV-19-B-D)
________________________
April 25, 2001
Before WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM**:
*
Walter S. Smith, Jr., District Judge for the Western District
of Texas sitting by designation.
**
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Plaintiff-Appellant John Dedeaux appeals the district court’s
denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Dedeaux’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint was ordered closed by the district court because Dedeaux
had not exhausted his administrative remedies as required under 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Dedeaux argues that he made a good faith effort
to exhaust his administrative remedies after his section 1983 case
had been closed by the district court for failure to exhaust.
We review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. See Travelers Ins.
Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).
Dedeaux’s motion reflected that two “Administrative Review Program”
(ARP) grievances had been “withdrawn/step one,” one ARP had
proceeded only to step one, and three ARPs had proceeded to step
three. Dedeaux’s motion does not describe the subject matter of
each of these ARPs, and thus, Dedeaux’s motion fails to establish
that he had exhausted his administrative remedies as to the issues
presented in his section 1983 complaint. Therefore, the district
court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dedeaux’s motion
for relief from judgment. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292,
296 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that section 1997(e) requires
exhaustion of administrative remedies before an action can be
brought in federal court). Accordingly, the district court’s
denial of Dedeaux’s motion for relief from judgment is, in all
respects,
2
AFFIRMED.
3