Proceeding pro se, Roderieque Thompson, federal prisoner # 59846-019, challenges the dismissal of his Bivens action for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (action against federal actors). This court reviews de novo a § 1915A dismissal, using the same standard applicable to dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). E.g., Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 F.3d 756, 763-64 (5th Cir. 2014).

Thompson asserts he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he sought relief unavailable from the administrative process (monetary damages). To the contrary, a prisoner is required to exhaust administrative remedies even when seeking such damages. E.g., Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001); see also, e.g., Murrell v. Chandler, 109 Fed.Appx. 700, 700-01 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

In the alternative, Thompson contends he was entitled to equitable tolling of the administrative-grievance process, either because of his later discovery of his claims or because of the lack of available relief. Proper exhaustion includes compliance with the agency’s critical procedural rules, including deadlines, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006), and district courts have no discretion to excuse a failure to exhaust, Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.