Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20386/USCOURTS-ca5-03-20386-0/pdf.json

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

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20386

Summary Calendar

 

OSCAR L. SHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VINCENT BENNETT; MARY MOSELY; CLIFF H. PRESTWOOD;

MITCHELL L. ALLISON; ROBERT R. CHANCE; TIMOTHY MOFFETT; 

SALLY PITTMAN; DERICK VAN BUREN; CRAIG B. PRICE; TIMOTHY L.

MASSEY; INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-4267

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar L. Shaw, Texas prisoner # 646048, appeals from the

summary judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

suit for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, as

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1997e. On appeal, Shaw contends that the

exhaustion requirement did not apply to all of his claims and

 Case: 03-20386 Document: 0051507458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2004
No. 03-20386

-2-

that the district court erred by considering, sua sponte, the

exhaustion issue when addressing and denying Shaw’s motion for

summary judgment. Shaw also argues that the defendants-appellees

waived the exhaustion “defense” by failing to assert it in their

answer, and that their summary judgment motion based on that

ground should have therefore been denied. Shaw further asserts

that the district court erred in dismissing his suit with

prejudice. 

Because exhaustion is mandatory under amended 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e, Shaw was required to exhaust his administrative remedies

for all his claims, including those raised under the Americans

with Disabilities Act, since they involved matters of prison

life. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001); see also

Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002). Under the

law of this circuit, the district court was permitted to consider

sua sponte the issue of exhaustion when addressing and denying

Shaw’s motion for summary judgment. Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d

887, 889 (5th Cir. 1998).

Shaw’s waiver-of-exhaustion-defense claim, which he failed

to preserve in the district court, does not survive plain error

review since this court has not specifically identified

exhaustion as an affirmative defense that may be waived. See

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Because Shaw was proceeding in forma

pauperis (IFP) in the district court, the dismissal of the

 Case: 03-20386 Document: 0051507458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2004
No. 03-20386

-3-

complaint with prejudice for purposes of proceeding IFP was

within the discretion of the district court and will not be

disturbed. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir.

1998).

Shaw also argues that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motions for leave to supplement his

complaint, default judgment, discovery, and equitable/injunctive

relief. Upon review of the record, we find no abuse of

discretion with respect to the district court’s denial of these

motions. See Griffin v. County Sch. Bd. of Prince Edward County,

377 U.S. 218, 226 (1964); Burns v. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336, 343

(5th Cir. 1998); East v. Scott, 55 F.3d 996, 1002 (5th Cir.

1995); Thomas v. Kippermann, 846 F.2d 1009, 1011 (5th Cir. 1988);

Peaches Entm’t Corp. v. Entm’t Repertoire Assocs., Inc., 62 F.3d

690, 693 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-20386 Document: 0051507458 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2004