Xavier Cravenwolfe v. Robert Carter, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Steven M. Colloton and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4464194-2] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Xavier Cravenwolfe. [4473370] [16-2665]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2665 ___________________________ Xavier Cravenwolfe lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Robert Carter, ACI Director; Tim Lowery, ACI Furniture Factory Plant Manager; Randal Raper, ACI Furniture Factory Floor Manager lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2016 Filed: November 29, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 16-2665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Entry ID: 4473370 Arkansas inmate Xavier Cravenwolfe appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice, following its determination that Cravenwolfe failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination, as the record showed beyond genuine dispute that Cravenwolfe omitted material information that was required on a grievance appeal form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 by prisoner until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted); King v. Iowa Dep’t. of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of § 1997e(a)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (prison’s administrative exhaustion requirements govern whether exhaustion has occurred); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (proper exhaustion demands compliance with prison’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (inmate’s subjective beliefs about grievance process cannot excuse exhaustion requirement). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Cravenwolfe’s pending motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 16-2665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Entry ID: 4473370

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?