Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0588-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony IRVINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe FERNALD; et al., Defendants, Bruce Toney; NFN Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-11225.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided April 20, 2005.
    Tony Irvine, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Tony Irvine, Texas prisoner No. 1122042, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se and in forma pauperis civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Irvine does not dispute that he has failed to comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), but he argues that the dismissal of his complaint with prejudice for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis violates his right of access to the courts. Irvine also challenges the district court’s decision to sever and transfer his claims against defendants employed at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Wynne Unit to the Southern District of Texas, which is where those claims arose.

We find no error in the dismissal of claims for failure to exhaust prison administrative remedies. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002); Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The dismissal will have no effect on Irvine’s ability to bring a paid complaint raising the same allegations. Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998). The decision to sever and transfer certain of Irvine’s claims was within the district court’s broad discretion. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir.1989); Williams v. Hoyt, 556 F.2d 1336, 1341 (5th Cir.1977).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.