Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-16-02665/USCOURTS-ca8-16-02665-0/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. 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[Unpublished]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