Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10946 Su m m ar y Cal endar RO BE RT M AR TI N EZ, Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant
v. BU S D RI VE R, N am e U nkno w n, G EO Em pl o ye e Li e ut e nanti n Rank; F E D E R A L C O R R E C T IO N A L O F F IC E R , N am e U n kn ow n , G E O E m pl oyee; U N KN OW N W ALKE R, Co r r e c t i o na lOf f i c e r , GEO Em p l o y e e ; W ARD EN NFN G O I N G S, G EO ; LAW LI BR AR Y SU PE RV I SO R, N am e U nkno w n, D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C V
- 463 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 I A M: * R o b e rt M a rtin e z , T e x a s p riso n e r # 11 8 8 2 3 0 , a p p e a ls th e d istr ict c o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 com pl ai n t . Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed M a rti n ez ’ s com p la in t for a n u m b er of rea son s, on e of w h i ch w a s h i s fa i l u re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . M a r tin e z ’ s a p p e a l d o e s n o t a d e q u a te ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10946

Becau se of our dispositionof thi s appe al, we ne ed not a ddress whe therth e alle ge d 1 acts are violation s of Martin ez’ s con stitution al rights. We in no way condo ne the typeof conduct alle ge d to have o ccurr ed o n this bus ride if, indee d, Martine z’s all egatio ns are true. 2 c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is s u it fo rfa ilu r e to e x h a u s t. F o rth is reason, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssali s AF FI RM ED . I . B AC KGR OUND Robe r tM ar t i ne z f

i l e d t hi s pr o s e s ui tund e r4 2 U . S. C. § 1 98 3 c o m pl ai ni ng abou tvari ou s pri son cond i t i on s t o w h i ch h e w as s u b jec ted. M art i n ez al l eged t h at duri n g a f

i f t een an d a h al f

hou r bus ri de h e w as den i ed ad equ ate bat h room fac i l i t i es i n vi ol at i on of hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s. M ar t i nez al so c om pl ai ned t hat 1 h i s r i gh t s w ere vi ol ated w h en pri son of f i ci al s al l ow ed a bu s dri ver w i t h a poor dri vi n g h i st ory t o dri ve t h e bu s, res u l t i n g i n an acci den ti n w h ic h M art i n ez c o n te n d s h e w a s inju r e d . A d d itio n a lly , M a r tin e z a lle g e s th a t t h e la w lib r a r y in hi s pr i s o n i s i nad e qua t e . The di s t r i c t c o ur t r e vi e w e d M ar t i ne z ’ s c o m pl ai nta nd t h en di sm i ssed al lof hi s c l ai m s f

or t h ree r eason s: ( 1) fai l u re t o exh au st adm i ni st r at i ve r em edi es ; ( 2) fai l ure t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi c h re l i ef c an be gran t ed; an d ( 3) bei n g f ri vol ou s. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW Th i s c our tr evi ew s de nov o a d 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 com pl ai n tf

or fai l u re t o exh au sta n d f or fai l u re to st ate a cl ai m u pon w h i ch rel i ef can be gran t ed . C a rb e v . L a pp in , 492 F . 3d 325 , 327 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) . Th i s c ou rt r evi ew s und er an abuse of di sc r et i on st andard t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s f i ndin g t hat M a r tin e z ’ s cla im s w e r e fr iv o lo u s . Ber r y v . Br ady , 192 F . 3d 504 , 507 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). I I I . D I S CUS S I ON M art i n ez’ s app ealrai ses t w o i ssues f or t h e court . Fir st , t h e courtm u st de t e rm i n e w he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alw as pr o pe r . Se c o nd, i f t heN o. 08- 10946

Whileu npubli shed opinion s are not precede nt, we cite this case as illustrative of how 2 we haveaddressed this situationinth e pa st. 3 di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalw as pro p er, t h e courtm u stt h en deter m i n e w h et h er M a r tin e z ’ s a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s . W e w ill a d d r e s s e a c h is s u e in tu r n . A . Th e D i st r i c tC our t ’ s D i sm i ss al The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s m i s s e d M ar t i ne z ’ s s ui tb e c aus e he a dm i t t e d o n t he face of hi s c om pl ai n tt h at he fai l ed to exh au sthi s adm i n i st rat i ve rem edi es bef ore br i ngi ng s ui t . M ar t i nez br oughtt hi s sui tby usi ng a f or m c om pl ai nt i ss ued by t h e di st ri ctcourt . Q u est i on III of t h e f orm com pl ai n tasked M art i n ez w h et h er h e ha d exh au st ed h i s a d m in ist rat i ve rem edi es bef ore bri n gi n g sui t ; M art i n ez a n s w e r e d , “N o .” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d u p o n M a r tin e z ’ s a n s w e rto d is m is s h is s u it u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) , w h ic h re q u ir e s a ll p r is o n e r s to e x h a u s t t h e ir ad m i n i st rat i ve rem edi es bef ore bri n gi n g sui tw i t h r e sp e ct t o t h ei r pri son cond i t i on s. I n Jon es v. B ock , t h e S u p r e m e Co u r t h e l d t h a tp r i s o n e r s , u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 19 9 7 e(a), “are n ot req u i red to sp eciall y plea d or de m on strate ex h a u s tio n in t he i rc o m pl ai nt s . ” 5 49 U . S. 1 99 , 2 16 ( 20 07 ) . I n C a rb e v . L a pp in , t h i s c ou rt s t at e d t hata “ di s t ri ct cour tc anno tb y l o c alr ul e s i de s t e p Jon es byr e qui r i ng p r is o n e r s to a ffir m a tiv e lyp le a d e x h a u s t io n .” 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 3 2 8 . C arb e ’s proh ibi t i on h as been i n t erpret ed by t h i s c ou rtt o encom pa ss qu est i on s i n “ f orm com pl ai n t s” i ssued by dis t ri ctcourt s t h at are desi gn ed to e l i ci t“ i n f orm ati on a b ou t [a p ri son er’ s] ex h a u sti on of a d m i n i strative re m ed i es.” T orns v. Mi ss. D e p ’ t of Co r r ., N o. 0 7 -6 0 2 56, 301 F . A pp ’ x 386 , 389 ( 5th C i r. 20 08 ) ( unpub l i s he d) ( s t at i ng a c o ur tc anno tc o ns i de ri nf o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng exh au st i on t h at i s el i ci t ed by t h e court ’ s ow n for m c o m p l ai n t ) . W e need not 2 deci de today h ow far C a r b e ’s pr oh ib i ti on ex ten d s, be ca u se M a rti n ez fa i l ed to r a is e th is le g a l a r g u m e n t in h is b r ie f.N o. 08- 10946

4 “ ‘A l t h ou gh w e l iberal l y constr u e t h e bri efs of pro se ap pel l an t s, w e al so req u i re t h a t a rg u m en ts m u st b e brief ed to be pr ese rv ed . ’ ” Y o hey v. Col l i ns , 985 F . 2 d 222, 225 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng Pr i c e v . D igi t alEqui p. Cor p. , 8 4 6 F. 2d 1026, 1028 ( 5t h C i r . 1988) ) . “ W e w i l l not r ai se and di sc uss l egal i ss ues t hat [ an a p p ell a n t] h a s fa i l ed to asse rt. ” B rin k m a n n v. D a lla s C o u n ty D ep u ty S h er iff A bn er , 813 F . 2d 744 , 748 ( 5th C i r. 198 7) . I n hi s bri ef, M art i n ez does not c on t est t h e di st ri ct court’ s u se of h i s an sw er t o Q u est i on I II t o di sm i ss h i s c om pl ai n tf or fai l u re t o exh au st . Th e on l y argu m en tin M art i n ez’ s bri ef t h at c an be const rued t o c hal l e nge t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e xha us t i o n f i ndi ng i s hi s r e fe r e nc e t o l e t t e r s he s e n t to v a rio u s p riso n officia ls a n d a g e n cie s a b o u t h is co m p la in ts. M a r t in e z ’s r e fe r e nc e t o s uc h l e t t e r s , e ve n l ibe r al l y c o ns t r ue d, do e s no t give r i se t o t he argu m en tt h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr on eou sl y consi dered h i s an sw er to Q u est i on I I I . M ar t i nez’ s fai l ure t o r ai se t hi s l egalar gum entm eans t hat he has a b a n d o n e d it , a n d w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rit . H ugh es v. Joh n son , 191 F. 3d 607, 612- 1 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). S in c e M a r t in e z h a s fa il e d to a d e q u a t e l yc h a ll e n g e th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s concl u si on t h at he di d n otexh au sthi s adm i n i st rat i ve rem edi es, t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lm u st be aff i rm ed be ca u se M a rti n ez ’ s an sw er to Q u estion III “m a k e s cle a r ” o n th e “t h e [fa c e o f h is ] c o m p la in t” th a t h e “fa ile d to 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 b r in g in gs u it. C arb e , 4 9 2 F .3 d a t 3 2 8 ; see F err i ng ton v . L a. D ep’ tof Corr. , 315 F. 3d 529, 532 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( af f i r m i ng a d i stri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lof a com p l a i n t u n d er 42 U . S . C . § 19 9 7 e(a) f or fail u re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s ). B . Th e Fr i vol ous nes s of M ar t i nez’ s A ppeal B ec ause of

t he pot ent i alf

ora f i l i ng barunder 28 U . S. C . §19 1 5, t he f i nal q u e s tio n b e fo r e t h e c o u r t is w h e th e rM a r tin e z ’ s a p p e a l is fr iv o lo u s . In th is ci rcui t , “ [ a] n app eali s f ri vol ou s i f

the resul tis ob vi ou s or t h e argu m en t s of err or a re w h oll y w i th ou t m erit. ” Cog hl an v. S t arkey , 852 F . 2d 806 , 811 ( 5th C i r.N o. 08- 10946

Martine z’s appeal mi ght h ave had some merit if he had raise d an d ad equ ately briefed 3 a de fe n set o hisf

ailuret o exh au st . See Wr ight v. Hol li ngsw orth , 260 F.3 d 35 7, 3 58 n. 2(5th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (s tatin g4 2 U .S .C . § 199 7e’s “exhau stionrequirement is not jurisdiction al an d may be subje ct tocert a i ndefe nse s s uch aswaiver , es top pelor equitable tol ling”) . Mart inez, h ow ever , fail edt o doso , a n d b ec au seo f his failur e, heab a n do n edanysuchd ef en se s. See Yoh ey , 9 8 5F .2 d at 2 2 5( st atin gth at “argu me ntsmu stb e b ri ef edt o b e pr es erved”) . Martine z receive d his first strike from this co urt in Ma rt inez v. Tex. Dep ’tC orr. , 235 4 F. App’x33 5, 3 35 (5thC ir. 2 007) . Martin ez receive d his sec ond and thir d strike inthis ca se, on e fo r th e origin al di smi ssal a n d on e fo r th e frivolou s app eal. See 28 U.S.C . § 191 5(g) (stating that astrike is to b e given when a c ourtdismisse s as ui tf orfai lur e to“state acl aim upon which reli ef maybe granted”) ; Adepegba v. Hammons , 10 3 F .3d 3 83, 388(5th Cir. 1 996) (counting

as two strikes thi s court’s affirmation of a district court’s di smissal and this court’s di smi ssal of

th e sub se qu ent app eal a s f rivolou s) . 5 1 9 8 8 ); seealso O zeev. A m . Cou n ci lon G if tA n n u i t i es, I

n c. , 110 F. 3d 1082, 1097 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) ( “ I n t hi s c i r c ui t , a f r i vol ous appeali s ei t herone t hat purs ues l egal p o in ts n o t a r g u a b le o n th e m e r its o r o n e in w h ic h th e re s u lt is o b v io u s .”), vaca t ed and r e m ande d o n o t he rg r o unds , 5 2 2 U .S . 1 0 1 1 (1 9 9 7 ). T h is co u r t h a s s ta te d th a t a n a p p e a l is “fr iv o lo u s [w h e n ] . . . th e re s u lt is obv i ou s f

rom t h e [ di st ri ctcourt ’ s c orrec t , ] com preh en si ve an d d eci si ve exp osi t i on of t h e law . ” Coghl an , 8 52 F . 2d at 810 . Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s opi n i on bel ow c o r r e c t l y ana l yz e d t he r e l e va ntst at ut e and c as e l aw r e ga r di ng e xha us t i o n, a nd i t s exposi t i on of

t h e l aw m ad e i tcl ear t h at M art i n ez’ s su i th ad t o be di sm i ssed b e c a u s e o f h is fa ilu r e to e x h a u s t . B e c a u s e t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s cle a ro n th is poi n tof l aw , i tshou l d hav e been obvi ou s t o M art i n ez t h at t h i s c ou rtw ou l d als o di s m i s s hi s s ui tb e c aus e o f h i s fai l u r e t o e xha us ti f he di d no ts e tf

o r t h a ny cogent reason t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on w a s incorrec t . Si n ce M ar t i nez’ s appealw as “ t aken ‘ i n t he fac e o f c l ear , unam bi guous, di spo si t i ve h ol di n gs of t h i s’” court , hi s app ealm u stbe deem ed f ri vol ou s. Cog hl an , 852 F. 2d

3 at811. Bec aus e M ar t i ne z ’ s a ppe ali s f r i vo l o us , i tco unt s as M ar t i ne z ’ s t hi r d s t r i ke u n der 28 U . S . C . § 191 5( g) . B ecau se M art i n ez h as col l ect ed three st ri kes u n der 4 28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) , he i s now bar r ed f r om pr oc ee di ng i n f

orm a p auperi s i n a nyN o. 08- 10946

6 ci vilaction or a p p ea lf i l ed w h i l e h e is i n ca rcera ted or d eta i n ed i n an y facil i ty u 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 . I V. C ONC L US I ON F o rth e re a s o n s s ta te d h e r e in , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l is AF FI RM ED , a n d a 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g) BAR I S I M POS ED .