### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40876 Su m m ar yC al endar J ERRYL BI S BY Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. S erg ea n t K IM B E R LYG A R Z A , B u i l d i n g S u p erv i sor S erg ea n t, M cC on n ellU n i t; AM ERI CAN CORREC TI ON A SSO CIAT I ON; W a r d e n OS CAR M ENDOZA, M cC on n ellU n i t D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
*********************************************************** J ERRYLYNN BI S BY Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. AMER I CA N C OR RE CT I ONA L A S S OC IAT I ON D efen da n t - A pp el l ee
*********************************************************** J ERRYLYNN BI S BY Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. O S C A R M E N D O Z A , W a r d e n -M c C o n n e ll U n it D efen da n t - A pp el l ee United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40876

P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e court h as deter m i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4.

2 A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V
- 404 U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V
- 423 U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V
- 424 B e fo r e G A R Z A , C L E M E N T a n dO W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * J e r r yL y n n B i s b ya p p e a l s f r o m t h e g r a n to f

s um m a r yj u d g me n tf o rt wo defenda n t s and t h e di sm i ssalof hi s c l ai m againstan ot h er defen da n tf or fai l u re t o e xhaustadm i ni st r at ive r em edi es . B i sb y sli pped and fell i n hi s c ell on Jul y 4, 20 07 , r e s ul t i ng i n t hr e e 42 U . S. C. § 1 98 3 ac t i o ns thatw e r e c o ns o l i da t e d b y t he di st r i c tc our t . The def endant s i n B i sb y’ s ac t i ons w er e Ser geantK i m ber l y G ar za, W a rd e n O sc a r M e n d o z a , a n dth e A m e rica n C o rr e ctio n a l A ss o cia tion (A C A). T h is co u r t r e v ie w s d e n o v o ag r a n t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. Cous i n v. S m a ll , 3 25 F. 3d6 27 , 6 37 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) . Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s pr o pe r“i f t he pl ead i n gs, thedi s c o very an d d i scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a tt h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n dth a t t h e m o v a n t is e n titled to jud gm en t as am a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R . C IV . P . 56 (c) . “ [T ]he pa rty m o vin g f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en tm u st‘ dem on st rat e t h e absen ce of a gen ui nei s s ue of m a terialfa ct, ’bu t ne edn ot n ega teth e e l e m e n t s o f th e n o n m o v a n t’s ca s e .” L i t t le v. L i qu i dA i r Corp . , 37 F. 3d106 9, 107 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4) ( e n b anc) ( quo t i ng Celo texCo rp . v . Ca tre tt , 477 U . S. 317 , 323 ( 19 86 ) ) . I f t he m o vi ng pa r t y m e e t s t he i ni t i alb ur de n o f

s ho w i ng t hatt he r e i s no g e nui ne i s s ue , t he b ur de n s hi f t s t o t he n on m ovan tt o set f

ort h specif

i c fact s s h ow i n g t h e exi st en ce of a gen u i n e i ssue f

or tr ia l. F ED . R . C IV . P . 56(e) . Th e non m ovan t c a n n o t s ati sf y h i s s u m m aryN o. 08- 40876

3 j u dg m en tbu rden w i t h con cl u si on ala l l egati on s, u n sub st an t i ated assert i on s, or o n lyas c in tilla o f e v id e n c e . L ittle , 37 F. 3d at1075. Bi s byc o nt e nds t hatG ar z a w as delibe r at e l y i ndif fe r e ntt o hi s s e r i o us m ed i ca ln ee d s b yo r d e r in g h i m ba ckto h i s cellan dde n yin g h i m i m m ed i a te m edi c alt r eat m entaf t erhi s fal l . Th e r ec or d, how eve r , i ndi c at es t hatB i sb y w as se en w i t hi n hours of hi s sli p and fal l , and i tdoe s noti ndi c at e thathi s pai n w as suf f i c i ent l y se ve re d u r i ng t he per i od be t w ee n hi s fal land hi s exam i nat i on by m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l to g iv e ris e to a n E ig h th A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . Cf . East e rv. Po w ell, 467 F . 3d459 , 464 - 65 (5t h C i r. 200 6) (h ol di n g t h at a pri soner m ay recover d a m a g e s fo r p a insu ffer e dd u rin gd e la yof tre a tm e n t). B i sby contend s t h at th ere i s a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfactas t o w h et h er g r ie v a n c e r e m e d ie s w e r e u n a v a i l a b le to h im a s to M e n d o z aa n dB is b y ’s c o n d itio n s o f c o n fin e m e n t c la im b e c a u s e g r ie v a n c e p e r s o n n e l fa ile dto re tu r n h is s t e p- o ne g r i e va nc e he ha d f i l e d abo uthi s l e ak y c e l la nd the b l ac k m o l d g r o w i ng i n si de i t . H e a rgues t h at the exh au st i on requ i rem en tsh ou l d h ave been deem ed s at i s f i e d b y t he fail ur e t o r e t ur n hi s g r i e va nc e . H e s t at e s t hathe m ad e M e ndo z a, G ar z a, a nd the A CAaw ar e o f c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o ns v i a l e t t e r s he w rot e, bu tt h at th ey ref u sed to r e m e d ythem . A l so, an outsi de organ i zati on cal l ed “Th e E yes of Ju st i ce” w ro te l et t ers i n f orm i n g t h e defen da n t s of u n cons ti t u t i on all ivi n g cond i t i on s att h e un i t . B i sby seeks t o rely on carbon cop i es o f I- 6 0 req u e s t fo rm s sen t t o M en d oz ato sh ow ex h a u sti on an dsee k s to rely on Abrah am W eber’ s case, n o. 2: 04-C V
- 003 78, t o argu e t h at of f i ci a ls w ere puton noti c e o f

c ondi t i ons att he uni ti n 2004. U n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 9 7 e(a), “[n ]o a cti on s h a l lb e b rou gh t w i th re sp ect to pri so n co ndi t i ons under se c t i on 1983 of t hi s t i t l e, or a n y ot herFeder all aw , by a pri soner conf

i n e d in an y j ai l , pri son, or ot h er c orrec t i on alfaci l i t y u n t i lsuch a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a s a r e a v a ila b le a r e e x h a u s te d .” T h e p u r p o s e s o f th is e x h a u s t i o n r e q u i r e me n ta r e t o “ g iv e a n a g e n c y a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o r r e c ti t s o wn m i stak es w i th resp ect to the pr og ra m s i t ad m i n is te r s be fore i t i s h a l edi n toN o. 08- 40876

4 federalcourt” an d to al l ow f or c l ai m res ol u t i on i n proceedi n gs bef ore an ag en cy b eca u se iti s fa ster a n d m ore econ om i ca ltha n l i ti ga ti on i n fed era lcou rt. W oo df or d v. N go , 548 U . S. 81, 89 ( 2006) ( quot i ng Mc Car t hyv . Madiga n , 5 03 U . S. 1 4 0 , 1 4 5 (1 9 9 2 )) . T h i s c o u r tr e v ie w s ad is t r ic tc o u r t ’s d is m is s a l o f a p r is o n e r ’s § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t fo r fa ilu r e to e x h a u s t d e n o v o . Ca rb e v . L a pp in , 492 F. 3d 325, 3 2 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ).

“ T h e P L R Arequi res exh au st i on of ‘ such adm i n i st ra tiv e r em edi es as are a va i l a b l e.’” Jonesv. B oc k, 5 49 U . S. 1 99 , 2 17 ( 20 07 ) ( qu ot i n g § 1 99 7e ( a) a nd r ej ec t i ng Si xt h C i r c ui trul e re qui r i ng c l ai m anttonam e a l ldef endant s i n i ni t i al g r ie v a n c e ). P r o p e re x h a u s tio n re q u ir e s th a t t h e p r is o n e rn o to n l yp u r s u e a ll av ail ab l e a ve nue s o f

r e l i e f b uta l s o co m ply w i t h al la dm i ni s t r at ivede ad l i ne s a nd p r o c e d u r a l ru le s . W o o df o r d, 54 8 U . S. a t8 9- 93 . A pr i s o ne rc anno ts at i s f y t he e x h a u s tio n r e q u ir e m e n t “b yfilin ga n u n tim e lyo ro th e r w is e p r o c e d u r a lly d efective ad m i n i strative g ri ev a n ce orap p ea l . ” Id . at83- 84. T h e T exas pri son syst em ha s a t w o- st e p f orm algri evan ce proc ess. Jo h n s o n v . J

o h n s o n , 385 F . 3d503 , 515 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) . “ [A] pri soner m u st p u rsu e a griev a n ce th rou gh bo th step s f or itto be con s id e r e d e x h a u sted . ” I d. (c i t i ng Wr ightv . Ho l l i ngs w o r t h, 2 6 0 F .3d 3 5 7 , 3 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 )).

“ [ E ] xh au st i on i s not per se i n ad equ ate s i m pl y becau se an i n divi du all atersued w as not nam ed i n t he gr i evanc es . ” Jon es, 5 49 U . S . at 219 . Th e am ou n tof i n form a ti on n ece ssa ryde p en d s on th e typ e of pro b l em ab ou t w h i ch the i n m a te is co m p la in in g . Jo h n s o n , 38 5 F. 3da t5 17 . Thi s c o ur tha s n o t e d that“t he p r i m ar y purpos e of a gr i evanc e i s t o al er t pri so n of f i c i al s t o a pro bl em , n ot to p rov i d e p erso n a ln oti ce to apa rti cu l a r off i ci a ltha t he m a y b e su ed . ” I d. at522. H ow ev er, “the griev a n ce m u st pro vid e a d m i n i str a to r s w i th a fair opp ortu n i ty u n der t h e ci rcum st an ces t o a dd ress the probl em tha tw il ll aterf orm t h e basi s of t h e s u it , a n d. . . w il l o ft e n r e q u ir e , a s ap r a c t ic a l m a t t e r , t h a tt h e p r is o n e r ’s gr i ev a n ce ide n tify i n d ivid u a l s w h o a re co n n ected w i th th e pro b l em . ” I d. Th u s, w h ere an i n m ate com pl ai n s of im proper cond u ctb y a gu ard, “t h e adm i n i st rat orsN o. 08- 40876

5 respond i n g t o t h e gri evan ce w ou l d w an t t o kn ow . . . w h o w as i n volvedan d w h en t he i nc i de nt o c c ur r e d, o ra tl e as to t he ra va i l ab l e i nf o r m at i o n a bo utt he i nc i de nt th a t w ou l dpe rm i t an i n ve sti ga ti on of th e m a tter. ” I d. at517. T h e o n lyu n p r o c e s s e dg r ie v a n c e in th e r e c o r dw a s d ir e c t e da tG a r z a ’s c o nduc ta f

t e rBi s bys l i ppe d and fe l l , t ho ugh Bi s by di d all e ge t hat he w as t o l d he w ou l d be m oved t o ano n- l e ak y c e l l . The g r i e va nc e di d no tm e nt i o n m o l d, a nd i to nl y m e nt i o ne d wat e ra s b e i ng t he r e w he n he s l i ppe d a nd f e l l . The unp r oc es se d gr i evanc e w oul d nothave putM endoz a o n not i c e thatt he w at er y, m ol dy c ondi t i ons of

B i sb y’ s c ellw er e b ei ng c hal l enged by Bi sb y. B i sb y di d i ncl ude c opi es of f ive I
- 60s f

r om M ay t hro ugh A ugust2007 d i rected to M en d oz acom p l a i n i n g o f m old a n dw a ter l ea k s, b u t I -60 s ar e n ot a p a rt of the tw o-step T D C J f orm a lgriev a n ce p roce d u re B i sb y is req u i red to e x h a u s t. S eeT EXAS D EP’ T OF C RIMI NAL J US T I CE , O F F ENDE R O RI ENTAT I ON H ANDB OOK , 52- 54 (2 0 0 4 ). B isb y su b m itted a n I-6 0 to th e g rie v a n ce d e p a rtm e n t-- and not M endoz a- - i nqui r i ng about t he unpro c es se d gr i evanc e. 2d Su pp. R . 24. P ri soners are di rect ed to u se I
- 60s to com pl ai n abou tt h e ad equ acy of gri evan ce p r o c e d u r e s . S eeO F F ENDE R H ANDB OOK at 59 . H o w e ve r , t he I
- 60 abou tt he u n processed gri evan ce w as not add ress ed t o M en doza . M oreover, t h e gri evan ce i n q ue s t i o n woul d nothaveputM e ndo z a o n no t i c e t hatBi s byi nt e nde d t o pur s ue afo r m a l g r ie v a n c e a g a in s t h im . S e eJ o h n s o n , 3 8 5 F .3 da t 5 2 2 . S ect i on 199 7e( a) does not expl i cit l y al l ow on e p ri soner t o rel y on an ot h er p ri son e r ’ s g r ie v a n c e s o rlitig a tio n to s h o w e x h a u s tio n . S ee§ 1997 e( a) . M oreover, Bi s bydo e s no ta l l e get hatt he c o ndit i o ns o f hi s o w n c e l l w e r e , o r c o ul d hav e b e e n, rai sed by W eber i n 200 4. B i sby h as n ot show n t h at t h e W eber’ s l egal a ct i on am ou n t ed to an exh au st i on of B i sby’ s pri son gri evan ces. Bi s b yc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e Ame r i c a n Co r r e c t i o n a lAs s o c i a t i o n (ACA) c o n s p i r e dw i t h p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s t o f

r a u d u l e n t l ya c c r e d i tt h e Mc C o n n e l lUn i t . H e concedes that th e A C Aw as a private act or. In order to h ol d the A C Al i able on B i sby’ s Sect i on 198 3 cl ai m on a con spi racy th eory, t h e A C A m u st h ave en gag edN o. 08- 40876

6 in aco n s p ir a c yw ith s ta te a c to r s to v io la te h is co n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts . S ee C i n el v. Con n i ck , 15 F . 3d1 338 , 1 343 (5t h C i r. 199 4) . To m ak e such a cl ai m act i on able, th e p riva te an dthe pu b l i c acto rs m u st h a ve en tered i n to an ag ree m en t t o com m i tan il l egal act , an d a p l ai n t i f f ’ s c on st i t u tion alri gh t s m u stha ve been v io la te d . I

d. A p la in tiff m u s t “a lle g e s p e c ific fa c ts to s h o w a n a g r e e m e n t.” Pri est er v. L ow n d es Cou n ty, 3 5 4 F .3d 4 1 4 , 4 2 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). B i sby al l eges i n co n clu sion alt erm s t h at th e A C Aconspi red w i t h pri son o f f i c i al s t o fal sely ac c r e ditt he M c Conne l lU ni t . The e vi de nc e i ndi c at e d no gen u i n e i ssues o f m ater i alfactas t o w h et h er th e A C Aconspi red w i t h pri son of f i c i al s t o v i ol at e Bi sb y’ s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s. The di st r i c tc our tdi d noter rby g r a n tin g s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t fo rth e A C A . S ee F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (e); Pri est er, 354 F. 3d at421. Bi s bya r gue s t hatf o o d a tt he M c Conne l lU ni tis i nad e qua t e dur i ng lo c k d o w n p e r io d s . T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d e n ie dB is b y ’ s m o tio n to a m e n dh is com pl ai n tt o add t h i s c l ai m , an d the di st ri ctcourtd e n ied h is m ot i on f or a pr e l i m i nary i nj unc t i o n a s t o f o o d dur i ng l o c kdo w n pe r i o ds . Bi s by do e s no ta r gue t h at th e rul i n gs of

t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e an d the di st ri ctcourtw ere er roneou s. B is b yh a s fa ile dto b r ie f th e d is p o s itiv e is s u e fo ra p p e a l. Se e Br i nkm ann v. D a lla s Co u n ty D e

p u ty S h e r iff A b n e r, 8 1 3 F .2d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). B i sb y co n ten d s th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt erred byde n yin g h i s m oti on s to c onductan i nves t i gat i on and t o i nspec tt he pr i so n, i n w hi c h he r eques t ed that t h e courtor an app oi n t ee i n spectthe u n i ton a rainy da y so they coul d w i t n ess w at erent er i ng t he c ellan d b l ac k m ol d on t he w al l s. The m agi st r at e j udge den i ed tw o such m ot i on s. “T h e d i stri ct cou rt h a s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in d i scov erym a tters an d i ts ru l i n gs w i l lbe rev erse don l y o n an ab u se o f th a t discreti on . ” S co tt v. M o n sa n to Co ., 868 F. 2d 786, 793 ( 5t h C i r . 1989) . G ener al l y, s um m a ryju d gm entm ay be g r a n te d on l y a ft er a n “ad eq u a te ti m e for discov ery . ” Ce lo tex, 477 U . S. at322. H ow ever, a pl ai n t i f

f ’ s en t i t l em en t t o di scovery pri or t o a rul i n g on a m ot i on f orN o. 08- 40876

7 s u mm a r yj u d g me n ti s n o tu n l i mi t e d , a n dma yb e c u to f f wh e n t h e r e c o r ds h o ws t hatt he r eques t ed di sc ove r y w oul d not be “ l i kely t o pr oduc e the fac t s neede d by [a] p l a i n tiff

to w i th stan da R u l e 5 6 (e) m oti on f o rsu m m a ryj u d gm en t. ” Paul K a d a ir, In c . v . So nyCo r p . of A m ., 6 9 4 F .2d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 9 -3 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 3 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is p o s e do f B is b y ’ s co n d itio n s o f c o n fin e m e n t c la im a g a i n s tM e n d o z afo rfa ilu r e to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a n dh is cla im ag ai ns tAC A f

o rl ac k o f s t at e ac t i o n. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tne e d t o r e ac h t he i s s ue w he t he rt he M c Conne l lU ni tw as w at e r y andm o l dydue t o l e ak s , and no di scovery w as necessary as to that i ssue. T h e d en i alof B i sby’ s m ot i on s w as not a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S eeS co tt, 868 F. 2d at793. B is b yco n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db yfa ilin gto h o ldatr ia l o n h is all e ga t i o ns . H e a l l e ge s t hathe kno w s o f num e r o us po t e nt i alw i t ne s s e s w ho w o ul d t e s t i f

y ab o utl o ngs t and i ng, sub s t and ar d c o ndit i o ns i n t he unita nd abo ut G arza’ s hi st ori c ani m osi t y t ow ards m en an d h er poor t rea tm en tof pri soners gener al l y. B is b ym is s e s th e p o in t o f s u m m a r yju d g m e n t p r o c e e d in g s . N o tr ia l is n e c e s s a r yif a p la in tiff fa ils to s a tis fyh is s u m m a r yju d g m e n t b u r d e n , se e L ittle , 37 F. 3da t1 07 5, a nd Bi s bydi d no ts at i sf y t hatb ur de n when give n t he oppor t uni t y t o dos o. N ordi d he pr oveexhaust i on o f r em edi es as t o M endoz a. B i sby argu es th a t the m agis t rat e j u dg e err ed byden yi n g h i s m ot i on f or a pp oi n t m en tof

coun sel . H e argu es t h at he w as enti t l ed to ap poi n t m en tof c o uns e lb e c aus e he l ac ks l e ga l kno w l e dg e and has t o r e l y o n o t he rpr i s o ne r s w ho m ay o rm ay notbe t r ai ned i n l egalr es ear c h. H e a l l ege s t hatc ounse lc oul d have c o n d u c te dam o r e e ffe c tiv e in v e s tig a tio n th a n h e w a s a b le to co n d u c t. Adi st r i c tc our t m ay appoi nt c ounse l i n a se c t i on 1983 c as e if ex c ept i onal circum st an ces exi st . Th i s c ou rtrevi ew s a di st ri ctcourt ’ s d en i alof a m ot i on f or a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l u n d e rth e a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d . C u pitv. Jon es, 8 3 5 F .2d 8 2 , 8 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (cita tion s o m itted ).N o. 08- 40876

8 T h e den i alof

B i sby’ s app oi n t m en tof coun selm ot i on s w as n ot an abu se of d i scre ti on . B i sb y’ s cl a i m s ag a i n st G a rza an dM en d oz aw ere ga rd en va ri ety Ei g h t h A me n d m e n tc l a i m s wi t h s i m p l e fa c tp a t t e r n s . Hi s c l a i m a g a i n s tt h e ACA w a s sim p l y w i th ou t m erit. T h e record i n d i ca tes th a t B i sb y w a s fam i l ia rw i th pri son gri evan ce proc edu res an d w as abl e t o present hi s c l ai m s t o t h e di st ri ct court ad equ a te l y. B i sby’ s c ase di d n otpresent except i on alcircum st an ces w a r r a n tin gth e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. S eeC u p it, 835 F. 2d at86. B i sby ach i evedthree- st rike st atus u n der 28 U . S . C . § 191 5( g) af t er he f i l ed th e n o tic e o f a p p e a l int h is ca s e . B i sby v. C ri t es, 312 F . A pp ’ x 631 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ), pe t i t i o n f

o r c e r t . f

i l ed(M a y 7, 200 9) ( N o. 08-10338 ) . B i sby i s r em i n ded t h at he i s barred f

rom proceedi n g i n f

orm a pa u peri s (IFP ) i n an y civi lact i on or a p p e a l file dw h ile h e i s i n c a r c e r a te do rd e ta in e dina n yfa c ilityu n le s s h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). AF F I RMED.