Ireland v. Dretke, et al

Filing 920070314

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-40387 Summary Calendar CHARLES FRANKLIN IRELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOUG DRETKE; SANDRA BALDWIN, Correctional Officer; JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer, Beto 1; Jane Doe, Correctional Officer, Beto 1; UNIDENTIFIED UNIDENTIFIED, Officer of Gang Intelligence, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:05-CV-171 -------------------Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Charles Franklin Ireland, Texas prisoner # 506419, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Ireland filed an untimely Step 1

grievance and did not attempt to file a Step 2 grievance. Ireland's untimely Step 1 grievance does not excuse his failure to exhaust the prison grievance system. F.3d 863, 866-67 (5th Cir. 2003). See Days v. Johnson, 322

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-40387 -2Ireland argues that he sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies because he filed his Step 1 grievance while in the prison infirmary, which did not have a grievance box, by giving it to a nurse. Because Ireland did not raise this See

argument in the district court, we do not consider it.

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); see also Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Ctrs., Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000). also do not consider Ireland's argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that the district court erroneously denied his request for the appointment of counsel. See Wallace We

v. County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 292 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.