# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 15-2179

___________________________ Richard Trevino lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Woodbury County Jail, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________ Submitted: November 19, 2015 Filed: December 1, 2015 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Richard Trevino brought this civil damage action claiming that his pretrial confinement at the jail in W oodbury County, Iowa, violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and hi s constitutional rights. Trevino appealsthe district court’s 1 dismissal of his claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as the Pris on Litigation Reform Act requires, see42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); and the grant of summary judgment dismissing on the merits his claim that defendants kept him isolated from th e jail’s general population because of his disabilities. 2We affirm. On appeal, Trevino argues that he did not fail to exhaust the jail’s administrative remedies becau se jail officials prevented him from using its grievance procedures. The record belies this asserti on. Trevino filed eleven written complaints while at the jail and presented no evidence th at any official thwarted his attempts to file more grievances. See Gibson v. Weber , 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, we agree with the district c ourt that administrative grievance remedies were available, and Trevino failed properly to exhaust them. Two of Trevino’s grievances included th e claim that he was placed in solitary confinement on account of his disability. Jail officials may have rejected this grievance on the merits even though it was technically flawed, which would satisfy the PLRA exhaustion requirement. See Hammett v. Cofield , 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir.2012). However, the district court pr operly granted summary judgment dismissing this claim on the merits. The record cont ains unrebutted evidence that jail officials kept the wheelchair-bound Trevino in an isolat ed cell for his safety because he would have been an easy target fo r violent inmates in the ge neral population, and the jail could not afford additional staff to keep him safe. Trevino failed to respond with evidence of intentional disability discrimination or deliberate indifference to his rights

1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa, adopting the report a nd recommendations of the Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
2 On appeal, Trevino does not challenge di smissal of the United States Marshals Service on the ground of sovereign immunity. That ruling is therefore affirmed. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp. , 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir.1985). -2-under Title II of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (ADA requirements); Meagley v. City of Little Rock , 639 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2011). His constitutional § 1983 claim arising from the isolation fails for the same reason. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We deny Trevino’s motions for sanctions on appeal.

______________________________

-3-