Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01241/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1241

___________________________

Billy Mack Nichols, Jr.,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Sonya A. Pepper-Davis, Dr., Tucker Max Security Unit Infirmanry; Ava

Green-McDowell, Infirmary Manager/Health Services Administrator, Tucker Max

Security Unit; Marvin Hughey, Director of Nursing, Tucker Maximm Security

Unit Infirmary; Belinda Jackson, Nurse,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: June 12, 2015

Filed: June 22, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-1241 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 Entry ID: 4287318 
Arkansas inmate BillyNichols, Jr. appeals after the district court dismissed his 1

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative

remedies, and denied his various motions. In this court, he has moved for appointed

counsel, to strike appellees’ brief, and for a preliminary injunction.

Upon careful de novo review, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051,

1052 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Nichols’s

complaint without prejudice because it was undisputed that he had not exhausted his

administrative remedies at the time he filed suit, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Booth v.

Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 738 (2001); Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir.

2015); Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627-28 (8th Cir. 2003). We further conclude

that the district court properly denied Nichols’s motion to amend his complaint, see

Silva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2014), and properly

denied his motionsfor injunctive relief upon dismissing the complaint. We note that 2

a new case has been opened on Nichols’s behalf in the district court, and that he may

continue to litigate these issues, including whether a preliminary injunction should

be entered, in that action. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition,

Nichols’s motions on appeal are denied.

______________________________

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable

Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The denial of Nichols’s motion for a temporary restraining order is not

2

reviewable on appeal. See Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1241 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 Entry ID: 4287318