Enriquez Sanchez v. Davis et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICARDO ENRIQUEZ SANCHEZ,
TDCJ #1745089,
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
September 23, 2016
§
§
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice - Correctional
Institutions Division, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2356
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez (TDCJ #1745089), has
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C.
violations of his civil rights
§
1983
("Complaint"), alleging
(Docket Entry No.
1) .
Because
plaintiff is incarcerated, the court is required to scrutinize the
claims and dismiss
the
Complaint,
in whole or
in part,
if
it
determines that the Complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
§
1915A (b) .
concludes
After considering all of the pleadings,
that
this
case
must
be
dismissed
for
28 U.S.C.
the court
the
reasons
explained below.
I.
Background
Sanchez is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") at
the Jester III Unit. 1
Sanchez has filed this lawsuit against the
following defendants:
Warden
James
( 1) TDCJ Director Lorie Davis,
Jones,
medical provider at
(3)
Officer
Pittman,
the Huntsville Unit,
(6) Captain P. Choate,
(4)
( 5)
an
Dr.
( 2) Senior
unidentified
R.
Friedman,
(7) an unidentified transportation officer
from the Estelle Unit, and (8) an unidentified property officer at
the Beto Unit. 2
While incarcerated at the Huntsville Unit, Sanchez was assigned
to work in the textile factory, where he was supervised by Officer
Pittman. 3
Sanchez claims that on April 1, 2016, Pittman forced him
to perform work that he was not trained for or able to do. 4
fell and broke his leg and hand as a result. 5
Sanchez
Thereafter, Sanchez
alleges that he was denied proper medical attention,
that he was
roughly placed in an ambulance while being transported to another
unit, and that certain items of his property were stolen. 6
In the pending Complaint, which was executed on July 27, 2016,
Sanchez seeks nominal,
compensatory,
and punitive damages. 7
1
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1.
2
Id. at 3
3
Id. at
1
6.
31
4.
4
Id. at 4.
5
Id.
6
Id. at 3
7
1
4I
6.
Id. at 4.
-2-
The
court concludes,
however,
that the Complaint must be dismissed
because it is evident that Sanchez did not exhaust administrative
remedies before he filed this lawsuit.
II.
Sanchez's
Reform
Complaint
( \\ PLRA" )
Act
Discussion
is
governed by
which
I
requires
the
Prison Litigation
prisoners
to
exhaust
administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court.
42 U.S.C.
that
§
§
1997e(a).
1997e(a)
See
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized
mandates
exhaustion
of
all
administrative
procedures before an inmate can file any suit challenging prison
conditions.
See Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001)
Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988 (2002)
S. Ct.
910,
2378,
918-19
2382-83
(2007)
(2006)
i
Woodford v. Ngo, 126
see also Jones v. Bock,
i
i
127 S. Ct.
(confirming that "[t] here is no question that
exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims
cannot be brought in court").
It
is
well
established
that
administrative grievance process.
503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004)
891
Step
(5th Cir.
1
1998)
entails
i
TDCJ
has
a
formal
two-step
See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F. 3d
see also Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887,
(outlining the two-step procedure,
submitting
an
administrative
grievance
which at
at
the
institutional level followed by a Step 2 appeal if the result is
unfavorable) .
A Texas prisoner must pursue a grievance through
both steps to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
-3-
See Johnson, 385
F.3d at 515 (citing Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th
Cir. 2001)).
Sanchez concedes in his Complaint that he did not exhaust all
steps of the grievance procedure with respect to his claims before
filing
this
action. 8
The
Fifth
Circuit
has
emphasized
that
"pre-filing exhaustion of prior grievance process is mandatory" and
that district courts lack discretion to excuse a prisoner's failure
to exhaust his administrative remedies.
785, 788
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d
Where the face of the complaint makes
(5th Cir. 2012).
clear that an inmate has failed to exhaust administrative remedies,
a district court may dismiss the complaint without requesting an
answer from the defendants.
272
n.3
(5th Cir.
2010)
See Dillon v. Rogers,
(noting
that
sua
sponte
596 F.3d 260,
dismissal
is
appropriate where "failure to exhaust is apparent on the face of a
plaintiff's complaint")
327-28
(5th Cir.
2007)).
(citing Carbe v.
Lappin,
492
F.3d 325,
Because Sanchez failed to exhaust all
available administrative remedies before filing suit in federal
court, his Complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with
42 U.S.C.
§
1997e(a).
8
Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3. On September 13, 2016,
Sanchez filed a lengthy submission,
which contains several
unprocessed Step 1 grievances pertaining to his claims of
inadequate medical care.
See "Jurisdiction and Venue," Docket
Entry No. 12-3, pp. 11-16, 19-28.
There are no processed Step 2
grievances, however, and there is no other indication that Sanchez
completed both steps of the grievance process before he executed
his Complaint on July 27, 2016.
-4-
III.
Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing,
the court ORDERS that the Complaint
filed by Ricardo Enrique Sanchez (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as
required by 42 U.S.C.
§
1997e(a).
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 23rd day of September, 2016.
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
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?