1

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact, Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir.

1993); see, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

__________________________________________

WILLIAM ROBERT RIEHL, PRO SE, §

Hutchinson County Jail ID #15506, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:04-CV-0286

§

HUTCHINSON COUNTY and §

GUY ROWH, Sheriff, §

§

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff WILLIAM ROBERT RIEHL, acting pro se and while a prisoner confined

in the Hutchinson County Jail, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983

complaining against the above-referenced defendants and has been granted permission to proceed

in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff complains about the medical care he received during his incarceration in

the Hutchinson County Jail.

Plaintiff requests monetary and injunctive relief.

JUDICIAL REVIEW

When a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of

a governmental entity, the Court must evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of

process, Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 440 (5th Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous1

, malicious, fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 1915A; 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The same standards will support

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00286-J-BB Document 5 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 13
2

Cf, Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1120 (5th Cir. 1986) ("Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be

interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be

able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the

Watson questionnaire.").

2

dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other

correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). A Spears

hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos, 926 F.2d 480,

483 n.4 (5th Cir. 1991)2

.

The District Judge has reviewed plaintiff's pleadings and has viewed the facts

alleged by plaintiff in his complaint to determine if his claim presents grounds for dismissal or

should proceed to answer by defendants.

THE LAW AND ANALYSIS

Title 42, United States Code, 1997e(a), as amended by Section 803 of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1995, provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such

administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” “[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement

applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or

particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v.

Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002).

In response to question no. III of the complaint form inquiring whether the plaintiff

has exhausted both steps of the grievance procedure, plaintiff has marked “No.” It is clear plaintiff

did not exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court and, therefore, his claims

are barred by Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(a).

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00286-J-BB Document 5 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 14
3

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as

Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(c)(1),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint filed pursuant to

Title 42, United States Code, section 1983, by plaintiff WILLIAM ROBERT RIEHL is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEEDING IN AN IN FORMA

PAUPERIS PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION

1915(b). Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to plaintiff by first class mail. The Clerk

shall also mail a copy of this order to the Pro Se Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Texas, Tyler Division.

Any pending motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTERED THIS DAY 9TH OF MAY 2005.

/s/ Mary Lou Robinson 

MARY LOU ROBINSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00286-J-BB Document 5 Filed 05/09/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 15