Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Willis Floyd WILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack MANGRUM; Dorothy Burns; Warner Lumpkins; T.M. Atkins; D. Hardy; Nurse Cherian; Vonda Rafter; Francisco Rodriguez; James Wheeler; Timothy New; John Agbonkonkon; Carla Parks; Officer Siverand; Doctor Owusu, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-41331.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 26, 2005.
    Willis Floyd Wiley, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division Beto Unit, Tennessee Colony, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Willis Floyd Wiley, Texas prisoner #753383, appeals, pro se, the dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The district court found Wiley had not established exhaustion because the Steps 1 and 2 grievances he provided in support of his grievance had been returned to him for failure to comply with prison procedures. Wiley contends for the first time on appeal that he exhausted because he resubmitted his Step 1 grievance.

Generally, evidentiary contentions of this type not presented in district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Stokes v. Emerson Elec. Co., 217 F.3d 353, 358 n. 19 (5th Cir.2000). In any event, Wiley has not established the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to exhaust; he has not shown he exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a Step 1 and Step 2 grievance. See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir.2004); Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999).

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED, but it is MODIFIED to reflect the dismissal of these claims WITH PREJUDICE for purposes of proceeding in an informa pauperis proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Therefore, if Wiley exhausts his administrative remedies, he can present his § 1983 claims again, but he may not proceed in forma pauperis to do so. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133, 119 S.Ct. 1809, 143 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1999).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.