IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60266

Summary Calendar

ERIC DE’JUAN JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

E. L. SPARKMAN; UNKNOWN EMCF DISCIPLINARY RECORDS 

CUSTODIAN; UNKNOWN EMCF ERS OFFICER; 6/7/2012 MDOC 

RECORDS PERSONNEL; UNKNOWN EMCF COMPLIANCE OFFICER; 

CHRISTOPHER EPPS; EDDIE CATES; TYEASA EVAN; NURSE E. DUNN; 

DOCTOR HUGGINS, in Individual and Official Capacities; FIRST NAME 

UNKNOWN CLARKE, in Individual and Official Capacities; FIRST NAME 

UNKNOWN WALKER, in Individual and Official Capacities; J. HERSEY; 

JOHN DOES, Unknown 6/5/2012 Memo Receivers; FRANK SHAW, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:13-CV-982

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60266 Document: 00513725359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-60266

2

Eric De’Juan Jones, formerly Mississippi prisoner # 50222, appeals the 

dismissal of his lawsuit, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. He alleges that prison officials 

forcibly injected him with anti-psychotic medication against his will and 

without his informed consent as part of a conspiracy to deprive him of good 

time credits. He argues that, because he exhausted his administrative 

remedies with regard to the good time credit claim, his medical claims should 

be deemed exhausted. Alternatively, he argues that exhaustion should not 

apply because he was in imminent danger and that a jury should decide the 

exhaustion issue. Jones also moves for appointment of counsel and for leave 

to consolidate the instant case with his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding.

This court reviews a dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies de novo. Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999). A prisoner 

who wishes to file a § 1983 suit for damages against prison officials must 

exhaust administrative remedies before doing so. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 

Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). Proper exhaustion is 

required, meaning that the prisoner must not only pursue all available 

avenues of relief, he must also comply with all administrative deadlines and 

procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-96 (2006). Exhaustion 

must be completed prior to filing suit; it may not be excused if exhaustion is 

achieved while the suit is pending. Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785, 788 (5th 

Cir. 2012).

Because Jones fails to challenge the district court’s determination that 

he did not timely exhaust his claims related to the forced injection of antipsychotic medication, he has abandoned the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff 

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Jones’s argument that his medical 

 Case: 15-60266 Document: 00513725359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 15-60266

3

claims should be deemed exhausted in light of the fact that the defendants’ 

actions were in furtherance of the conspiracy to deprive him of earned good 

time credit is unavailing. Jones’s unsupported conspiracy allegations are 

speculative at best and, as such, are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue. 

See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover, his 

administrative remedy requests regarding his lost good time credit were 

insufficient to exhaust his forcible injection claims. See Ngo, 548 U.S. at 89.

Jones’s alternative arguments are also without merit. Jones’s contention 

that exhaustion should be excused because he was in imminent danger is 

belied by his subsequent release from prison and the absence of evidence of 

physical harm in the record. Furthermore, his contention that exhaustion is 

an issue that should be decided by a jury is contrary to law. See § 1997e(a); 

Ngo, 548 U.S. at 93-96.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Jones’s motions for 

appointment of counsel and for leave to consolidate this case with his § 2254 

application are denied.

AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 15-60266 Document: 00513725359 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/19/2016