### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10061 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY DESHAWN THOMAS , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
DOCTOR JOHN MILLS, Medical Director; D. PEYTON; TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 9

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Anthony Deshawn Thomas, Texas prisoner # 1864213, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s judgment on remand granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1 983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Thomas has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, a motion to amend

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 November 28, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10061 Document: 00514251995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2017No. 16

- 10061

2 the caption to reflect that he brought suit against the defendants in their official and individual capacities, and a motion requesting that this court take judic ial notice of certain evidence. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a pr isoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is mandatory, Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007), and thi s court takes a strict approach to the exhaustion requirement, Cowart v. Erwin , 837 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2016).
T he crux of T homas ’s argument on appeal is there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether his alleged failure to exhaust his administrative remedies was the fault of the defendants and others at the Tarrant County Jail. His argument is refuted by competent summary judgment evidence showing that he failed to properly exhaust his available remedies, see Cowart , 837 F.3d at 451, and is insufficient to show that summary judgment was improper , see Jones v. Lowndes County, Miss ., 678 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2012)

. E ven if the responses he received to his grievances created some confusion about the appropriate grievance procedure, Thomas was repeatedly advised, in writing, that he had 30 days to appeal to the Inmate Grievance Appeal Board and that the grievance appeals procedure was set forth in the inmate handbook, which the evidence s hows he received and which was readily available in the confinement areas. Further , although Thomas has provided a handwritten letter enti tled “Appeal Grievance / Letter, ” this document is presented for the first time on appeal

. Altho ugh we review de novo the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment, we Case: 16-10061 Document: 00514251995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2017No. 16

- 10061

3 will not consider this evidence as it was “not presented to the district court for its consideration in ruling on the motion.” Grogan v. Kumar , ___F.3d___, No.
15

- 60678, 201 7 WL 4324977, at * 3 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, t he district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Because the issue of exhaustio n is not complex and Thomas has demonstrated that he is capable of ade quately presenting his case, Thomas’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. All other motions are also DENIED. Case: 16-10061 Document: 00514251995 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/28/2017