Trevino v. Sanders

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Trevino v. Sanders

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-40039 Summary Calendar _____________________

GILBERTO TREVINO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY D. SANDERS, RN, Michael Unit; ANICETO DOMINGUEZ, Doctor, Coffield Unit; JOHN ZOND, Dr., Michael Unit; UNIDENTIFIED RIGGLEMAN, X-ray Technician, Michael Unit; LOUIS E. GIBSON, Medical Director, Michael Unit; GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CV-538 _________________________________________________________________

November 11, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gilberto Trevino, Texas prisoner # 578527, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983

civil rights

complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Trevino filed his suit after the effective date

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), and his case is thus

governed by the provisions therein. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,

119 S.Ct. 1809

(1999).

The PLRA amended § 1997e to require that a prisoner must exhaust

his administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action. See

§ 1997e(a). Trevino did not exhaust administrative remedies before

filing suit, and his purported exhaustion of administrative

remedies during the pendency of his suit does not satisfy the

requirements of § 1997e(a). See Underwood, 151 F.3d at 296.

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. Trevino’s

motions for production of documents, a temporary restraining order,

and an expedited ruling are DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished