Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Fifth Circuit: Exhaustion Mandatory Prior to Filing § 1983 Suit

Fifth Circuit: Exhaustion Mandatory Prior to Filing § 1983 Suit

 

On December 12, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that exhaustion of administrative remedies must be completed prior to the filing of a civil rights action in federal court.

 

Angelo A. Gonzalez, a Louisiana state prisoner, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court alleging Louisiana state prison officials threatened and harassed him, used excessive force on him, and denied him due process and medical care. He did not finish exhausting his administrative remedies until after he filed the suit.

 

The prison officials filed a motion for summary judgment for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion, citing Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998) in which the Fifth Circuit held that "a non-jurisdictional exhaustion requirement may, in certain rare instances, be excused" and rejected a "strict" reading of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (a). The prison officials appealed.

 

The Fifth Circuit noted that, in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that § 1997e (a) meant that, "Exhaustion is no longer left to the discretion of the district court, but is mandatory." In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), it held that, "There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court." Therefore, the Fifth Circuit held that Underwood had been tacitly overruled and district courts no longer had discretion to excuse prisoners' failure to properly exhaust the prison grievance process before filing their complaint. "Pre-filing exhaustion is mandatory, and the case must be dismissed if available administrative remedies were not exhausted." Therefore, the district court's denial of summary judgment was reversed and the case returned to that court for entry of judgment dismissing the complaint. See: Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012).

 

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal cases

Gonzalez v. Seal

Jones v. Bock

Woodford v. Ngo