Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50877 Su m m ar y Cal endar

D AV ID S IM K IN S , a ls o k n o w n a s D a v idH a r o ldS im k in s , P l a i n tiff

- A p p ell a n t v. A L L E N B R ID G E S , H a y s C o u n tyS h e riff D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 379

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * D a v idS im k in s , T e x a s p r is o n e r# 1 4 8 7 6 1 7 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d i sm i ssa lof h i s 42 U
. S

. C

. § 19 8 3 civil righ ts com p l a i n t ag a i n st H a ys C ou n ty Sh er i f f A l l en B r i dges all eg i ng t hatSherif f B r i dges deni ed hi m ac c es s t o al aw l ibrary du ri n g h i s s t ay i n t h e H ays C ou n t y Jail

. T h e d ist ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed S i m kins’ s c om pl ai n tbecau se he fai l ed to exh au stadm i n i st rat ive rem edi es. For t h e f o l l o w i n gr e a s o n s , w e a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50877

2 I
. B AC KGR OUND Si m ki ns w as i ncar c er at ed i n th e H a ys C ount y Jailf r om A pril7, 2008, th r o u g h J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 , o n ch a r g e s o f fo r g e r ya n dth e ft fo rw h ic h c o u n s e l, K e lly H i ggi ns , w as a ppo i nt e d o n Apr i l1 0, 2 00 8. On A pr i l1 6, 2 00 8, Si m ki ns f i l e d a gr i e va nc e a ga i ns tt he H ay s Count y She r i f f ’ s O f f i c e , contendi ng t hathi s due process ri gh t s w ere bei n g vi ol ated becau se j ai loff i ci al s w ere deny i n g h i m acces s t o l aw l ibrary researc h m ater i al

. I n hi s gri evan ce s u bm i ssi on , Sim kins fai l ed t o i ndi c at e thathe w as pr oc ee di ng pro se i n ca se s ot hert han t he c r i m i nal
m a tt e r s fo rw h ic h h e w a s b e in gh e ldin th e H a y s C o u n tyJ a il. Th e ne xtday, t he j a i l ’ s G r i evanc e Boar d i ss ued a de c i si on f i ndi ng t hat S i m kins w as not entit l ed to u se of a l aw l ibrary so l on g as he w as re p re se n ted by cou n sel

. I n st eadof ap pea l i n g t h e G ri evan ce B oard’ s deci si on , Sim kins f i l ed
s u it o n M a y6 , 2 0 0 8
. I I
. D I S CUS S I ON A

. S t an da rd of

R evi ew W e rev i ew a d i stri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lof acivilrigh ts claim for fail u re to exh au stadm i n i st rat ive rem edi es de no vo . Ca rb e v . L a pp in , 492 F. 3d 325, 327 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B
. Th e D i str i c tC our t ’ s D i sm i ss al O n a ppe al , Si m ki ns c hall e nge s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hathe fail e d t o e xha us t hi s ad m i ni s t r at ive c l ai m s ag ai ns t She r i f f Bri dg e s . U nde rt he P ri son L i t i gati on R efor m A ct of 199 5, i n m ates m u stexh au st“ such adm i ni st r at ive r em edi es as ar e a vail abl e” pr i ort o b ri ngi ng a c ivi lac t i on. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 997e( a)

. Reg ar dl e s s o f t he r e l i e f

s o ugh t , apr i s o ne rm us tpur s ue t he p r is o n g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e to its co n c lu s io n b e fo r e filin ga§ 1 9 8 3 s u it. B oo t h v. Ch u rner , 5 32 U
. S. 7 31 , 7 39 , 7 41 n. 6 ( 20 01)

. T h e “e xha us t i o n r e quir e m e nt appl i es t o al l i nm at e suit s about pri so n l i fe, w het her t hey i nvolve ge n er alN o. 08- 50877

3 circum st an ces or p art i cul ar ep i sodes, a n d w h et h er they al l ege excessive f orce or som e oth er w ron g.” Po rte r v . Nu ss le , 5 3 4 U .S

. 5 1 6 , 5 3 2 (20 0 2 ). T h ere i s a di spu t e as t o w h i ch gri evan ce pro ce ss w as i n ef fectw h en S i m k i n s f

i l edh i s griev a n ce. S h eriff B r id ge s con ten d s th a t t h e H a ys C ou n ty gri evanc e pr o c e s s i n e f fe c tw he n Si m ki ns f

i l e d hi s g r i e va nc e pr o vi de d at hr e est ep p rocedure f

or presenti n g a gri evan ce. Fir st , t h e i n m ate m u stdel iver a
w r i t t e n s t at e m e ntt o t he G r i e va nc e O f f i c e r , w ho t he n c o ns ul t s w i t h t he G r ie v a n c e B o a r do n w h ic h a c tio n t o fo llo w w ith in te n w o r k in gd a y s . S e c o n d , if t he i nm at e i s no ts at i s f i e d w i t h t he g r i e va nc e r e s po ns e , he m us ts ubm i tt o t he JailL i eu t en an tor C ap t ai n a w rit t en app ealw i t h i n f ive w orki n g da ys. U pon
r e c e ip t o f th e a p p e a l, a G r ie v a n c e R e v ie w B o a r dw ill re v ie w th e re s p o n s e w ith in t en w orki n g da ys. F i n al l y, t h e i n m ate can ap pea l t h e deci si on of t h e G ri evan ce R ev i ew B oa rdto t h e S h erif f, w h o m u st resp on dw i th i n f i ft ee n w ork i n g d a ys . In contrast , Sim kins c on t en ds t h at th e H ays C ou n t y gri evan ce procedu re i n ef fect att he t i m e he f

i l ed hi s gr i evanc e pr ovi ded no gr i evanc e a ppeal p rocess and as
r e s u lt t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e dw h e n it c o n c lu d e dth a t h e fa ile dto e x h a u s t h is
a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s b e fo r e filin gs u it. T h e distri ct cou rt f

ou n dtha t “reg a rd l ess of w h i ch plan w a s i n eff ect, p la in tiff

fa ile dto e x h a u s ta d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s .” W e d is a g r e e w ith th is f i n d i n g . U n d e rt h e g r i e v a n c e p l a n t h a tS i mk i n s c l a i ms wa s i n e f fe c ta tt h e t i me th a t h e file dh is g r ie v a n c e , th e r e w a s n o g r ie v a n c e a p p e a lp r o c e s s a v a ila b le

. T h at gr i evan ce pl an onl y provi ded inm ates an app ealf or di sci pl i n ary m att ers, no tf o rg r i e va nc e s . A c ar e f ul r e vi e w o f

t he r e c o r d, ho w e ve r , i ndi c at e s t hatt he H ay s County gr i e va nc e pr o c e s s w hi c h a f f o r de d i nm at e s a ppe al s dur i ng t he gr i e va nc e pr o c e s s w as i n e f fe c ts i nc e a tl e as t July 26 , 20 02 , w e l lb e f o r e Si m ki ns ar r ived att he H ays C ount y Jail

. Th er ef or e, Si m ki ns’ s c l ai m s ar e g ove r ned by th e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s re lie du p o n b yS h e r iff B r id g e s .N o. 08- 50877

4 A s det ai l ed ab ove , t hatgr i evanc e pr oc es s r equi r ed Si m ki ns t o f i l e a n ap pe alt o t he G r i e va nc e Rev i e w Boa r d a nd t o She r i f f B r i dg e s pr i o rt o i ns t i t ut i ng h i s § 198 3 suit

. T h e recor d r eveals t h at h e fai l ed t o do both. Si m kins’ s al l eged i gn oran ce of t h e proper procedu re i s n otan excuse . Thom asv. Fe de r alBur e au of Pr i s o ns , N o. C IVA C V 05- 1222, 2006 W L 3861 962, at *2 (W
. D
. L a . D ec. 1 3, 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t ap r is o n e r ’ s “a lle g e dig n o r a n c e [o f th e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s ] is notan ex c use [f

orfai l ure t o f

oll ow t he gr i evanc e pr oc es s] as no e xc ept i ons have been read i n t o § 1997 e( a) ” )

. Th eref ore, Sim kins’ s fai l u re to pu rsue his gri evan ce rem edy t o c onc l usi on c ons t i t ut es a fai l ure t o e xhausthi s adm i ni st r at ive
r e m e d ie s a n dh is la w s u it is b a r r e d u n d e r § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). Wrig h t v. Ho lli ngsw o rth , 2 6 0 F .3d 3 5 7 , 3 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). I I I
. C ONC L US I ON H avi ng det er m i ned t hatSi m ki ns fai l ed to exhausthi s adm i ni st r at ive
r e m e di e s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nti s a f f i r m e d.