Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20086/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Houston Federal Detention Center
Appellee
Rodericque Thompson
Appellant
Two Unknown Corrections Officers
Appellee
Unknown Medical Doctor
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20086

Summary Calendar

RODERICQUE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

HOUSTON FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER; TWO UNKNOWN 

CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; UNKNOWN MEDICAL DOCTOR,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-3402

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se, Rodericque Thompson, federal prisoner # 59846-019, 

challenges the dismissal of his Bivens action for failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (action against federal actors). This court reviews 

de novo a § 1915A dismissal, using the same standard applicable to dismissals 

* 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 23, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-20086 Document: 00512977811 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2015
No. 14-20086

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). E.g., Coleman v. Sweetin, 745 

F.3d 756, 763–64 (5th Cir. 2014).

Thompson asserts he was not required to exhaust his administrative 

remedies because he sought relief unavailable from the administrative process 

(monetary damages). To the contrary, a prisoner is required to exhaust 

administrative remedies even when seeking such damages. E.g., Wright v. 

Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001); see also, e.g., Murrell v. 

Chandler, 109 F. App’x 700, 700–01 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

In the alternative, Thompson contends he was entitled to equitable 

tolling of the administrative-grievance process, either because of his later 

discovery of his claims or because of the lack of available relief. Proper 

exhaustion includes compliance with the agency’s critical procedural rules, 

including deadlines, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006), and district 

courts have no discretion to excuse a failure to exhaust, Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 

F.3d 785, 788 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 14-20086 Document: 00512977811 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2015