IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60451

Summary Calendar

ALEXANDER NODARSE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ROSE, Correctional Counseler; PATERSON, Unit Manager; SMITH, Grievance

Coordinator; BOBBY PHILLIPS, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:10-CV-143

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alexander Nodarse, a California inmate (# F-89636) housed in a private

prison in Mississippi, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Nodarse’s suit claimed that his constitutional rights were

violated when, during a search of his cell, his headphones and CD player were

broken and his legal documents were taken. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-60451 Document: 00512434906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2013
No. 12-60451

We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, see Powe v. Ennis, 177

F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999). We do not consider Nodarse’s assertion, raised for

the first time on appeal, that the defendants tampered with an unnamed

witness. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999); see also Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990).

Nodarse has not shown that he properly exhausted the required three-step

grievance process. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-84, 89-93, 100 (2006).

While Nodarse states on appeal that he completed the second step of the process

by sending a 14-101B form to the grievance coordinator regarding his claim

against Correctional Counselor Rose, the only 14-101B form contained within

the district court record pertained to a complaint about a matter unrelated to the

claims that are the subject of the instant lawsuit. Nodarse has not alleged with

sufficient specificity that he attempted to comply with the 14-101B requirement

in connection with the claims raised in his § 1983 suit. 

Moreover, even if Nodarse filed a proper 14-101B form with respect to his

claims against Correctional Counselor Rose, the district court properly found

that he failed to complete the administrative remedy process. Nodarse’s 602

form was not reviewed because the appeals coordinator determined that Nodarse

had not completed the second step of the grievance process and because the 602

form included claims unrelated to his underlying grievance. See Woodford, 548

U.S. at 83. Nodarse’s failure to pursue his grievance remedy to conclusion

constituted a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wright v.

Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). Finally, Nodarse has not

shown that he has exhausted his claims against the remaining defendants for

allegedly failing to properly administer the grievance process. 

The district court’s dismissal of Nodarse’s § 1983 suit is AFFIRMED. His

motions for the appointment of counsel are DENIED. See Cooper v. Sheriff,

Lubbock County, Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991). His motion to change

venue if his case is remanded to the district court is DENIED as moot. 

2

 Case: 12-60451 Document: 00512434906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2013