* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

January 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10715 Summary Calendar

ZACHARY L KNIGHTEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD VOGELGESANG, Senior Warden; MICHAEL SAVERS, Assistant Warden; FRED C EARLY, Major; ELBERT HAMPTON, Disciplinary Captain; WILLIAM R CULLUM, Lieutenant; SUSAN L HALE, Correctional Officer IV; AMY L LOWERY, Sub-Counsel; NELLIE VANDRIVER, Administrator Assistant I; GEORGINA CLOWER, Investigator II; DAVID R BASSEE, Physician - Unit Health Authority; PATRICE MAXEY, RN )) Unit Health Administrator,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CV-120

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zach ary L. Knighten, Texas state prisoner # 627114, appeals

the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

compla i nt for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Knighten admits that he had not exhaus ted his administrative

remedies at the time that he filed his complaint.No. 04-10715
-2-

This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a

§ 1983 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant

to § 1997e. R ichardson v. Spurloc k , 260 F.3d 495, 499 (5th Cir.

2001). An inmate shall not bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action “until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A prisoner is required to exhaust his remedies

prior to filing his complaint. W end ell v. Asher , 162 F.3d 887,

890-91 (5th Cir. 1998).

Knighten admits that his remedies we re not exhausted at the

time that he filed suit. His allegations reflect that his

grievances were being processed in accordance wit h the

administrative regulations and that he did not afford the grievance

office the opportunity to complete the grievance process. Because

Knighten filed suit prior to the expiration of time for prison

officers to respond to his grievances, his complaint was properly

dismissed for failure to exhaust his remedies. S ee Powe v. Ennis

,

177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999).

Because Knighten has not shown th at he will present a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.

5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King

, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983).

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a “strike”

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Adepegba v. Hammons

,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996) . Knighten is CAUTIONED that if

he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he willNo. 04-10715
-3-

not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 2 8

U.S.C. § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.