Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the C ourth as determined that this opinionshould * not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30126 Su m m ar y Cal endar
RI CH ARD AN TH ON Y H EM PH I LL, P la in tiff

SA p p ell a n t v. R IC H A R D IN G L E S E , M e d ic a l D ir e c to ro f th e S t. T a m m a n yP a r is h J a il; G A R YB E N S C E K , D oct or D efen da n t s SA pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 5565

B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * R i cha rd A n t h on y H em p h il l fil ed su i tun der 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1983 against vari ou s part i es , a ll e gin g vi ol ati on s of t h e E i gh t h A m en dm en tf or denialof

proper m e di c alt r e at m e ntw hi l e i nc ar c e r at ed atSt
. Tam m anyPar i s h J ail
. The m a g is tr a te ju d g e d is m i s s e d H e m p h ill’ s s u it fo rfa ilu r e 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 . W e a ffir m . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 7, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30126 Document: 0051998536 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 30126

2 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND H e m phil l ar r ive d atSt
. Tam m anyPar i s h J ailw i t h s t i t c he s i n hi s fac e a nd
m o u th
. O v e r th e c o u r s e o f m a n ym o n th s , H e m p h ill re c e iv e dtr e a tm e n ts fo rp a in an d vi si on probl em s s t em m i n g f rom hi s inju ri es. I n hi s c om pl ai n t , he all eged th a t h e d idn o t r e c e iv e o th e rr e c o m m e n d e dt r e a tm e n ts . H e m p h ill b r o u g h t s u it aga i n stt h e St. T am m an y P ari sh C oroner’ s O f f i ce, D r. P et er G alvan , D r. R i cha rd Ingl ese, an d D r. G ary B en scek. Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e di sm i ssed t h e P a ri sh C o r o n e r ’ s O ffic e a n dG a lv a n in a n u n a p p e a le do r d e r . Ingl ese and B en scek (“ D efen da n t s–Appe ll e e s ” ) f il ed a m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , argu i n g t h at H em ph i l lfai l ed to exh au sthi s adm i n i st rat ive rem edi es. S ee 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1997 e(a ). In sup port of t h ei r m ot i on , D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees provi ded H em ph i l l ’ s m edi calrec ords an d an af f i da vi tof

D epu t y W arden G reg Longi no expl ai ni ng t he St
. Tam m anyPar i s h J ail ’ s a dm i ni s t r at ive r e m e dy pr o c e dur e (“AR P” )
. I n r e s po ns e , H e m phil lpr o vi de d d o c um e nt s s ho w i ng t hathe r e que s t e d a n AR P f o r m a nd c o m pl ai ne d a bo uthi s m e di c alt r e at m e nt . The
m a g is tr a te ju d g e g r a n te dth e m o t i o n fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t, a n dH e m p h ill t i m e l y ap pe al e d. II. A N A L Y S IS W e rev i ew the m a gistrate jud ge ’ s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo . Un i t ed Stat es v. L aw rence , 2 7 6 F .3d 1 9 3 , 1 9 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (cita tion om itted ). S u m m ary j u dg m en ti s a p p ropri ate w h en , af t er c on si deri n g t h e pl ead i n gs, dep osi t i on s, an sw ers t o i n t errogat ori es, a dm i ssi on s on f i l e, an d aff

i da vi t s, “t h ere i s n o g en u i n e is sue as to a n y m ater i alfacta n d
. . . the m ovi n g pa rt y i s entit l ed to a jud gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c ). T h e P riso nL iti g a tion R e for m A ct o f 19 9 5 (“P L R A”) p ro v id e s th a t “[n ]o Case: 09-30126 Document: 0051998536 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 30126

3 act i on shallbe broug h tw i t h res pect t o pri son c on di t i on s u n der sect i on 198 3 of t h i s t i t l e, or an y ot h er F ederal l aw , by a pri soner confi n ed i n an y j ai l , pri son, or ot h er c orrec t i o nalf

ac ility untils uc h a dm ini s t r at ive rem edi es as are ava i l able are e x h a u s te d .” 4 2 U .S .C
. § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). In c a s e s c o v e r e d b y th e P L R A , e x h a u s tio n is
m a n d a to r y . Po rte r v . Nu ss le , 5 3 4 U .S
. 5 1 6 , 5 2 4 (20 0 2 ).

“ The PLR A’ s e xha us t i o n r e qu i re m e nta ppl e s t o a l li nm at e s ui t s a bo ut pri son l i fe, w h et h er t h ey i n volve gen eralcircum st an ces or pa rt i cul ar epi sodes, a n dw h e th e rthe y a l l eg e ex cess ive f orce or som e oth er w ron g.” I d. a t5 3 2
. We h ave h el d that “ qu ibbles abou tt h e na t u re of a p riso n e r’s com pl ai n t , t yp e of rem edysough t , an d the suff i ci en cy or bread t h o f p ri son gri evan ce proc edu res”
w e r e fo r e c lo s e d b y th e b r o a ds c o p e o f th e P L R A
. Wrig h t v. Ho lli ngsw o rth , 260 F. 3d 357, 358 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) (c i t i ng Boo t h v
. Churner , 5 3 2 U .S . 7 3 1 , 7 4 1 n .6 (2 0 0 1 )). A ccor di n g t o t h e L on gi n o af f i da vi t , St. T am m an y P ari sh Ja i l u ses a tw os t e p AR P. The i nm at e m us tf i r s ts ubm i ta n AR P f o r m w i t hi n ni ne t y da ys o f t he in c id e n t g iv in gr is e t o t h e g r ie v a n c e (in lie u o f th e fo r m , a n in m a te m a ys u b m it aw ritte n co m m u n ica tion clea rlyla b e led “t h is is ag rie v a n ce th ro u g h th e A R P ”). I f t he i nm at e i s not sa t i sf i ed w i t h t he out c om e of t he f i r st st ep, t he i nm at e m ay p r o c e e d to th e s e c o n d s te p : a n a p p e a l to th e S h e r iff. T h e in m a te m a yfile s u it if di s s at i s f

i e d wi t h t he r e s po ns e t o t he s e c o nd s t e p. In t h ei r m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees asser t ed t hatH e m phil lha d no tc o m pl e t e d e ve n t he f i r s ts t e p o f

t he AR P. I n o ppo s i t i o n, H em ph i l lprodu ced w ri t t en com m u n i cat i on s dem on st rat i n g t h at he com pl ai n ed t o pri son of

f i ci al s r egard i n g h i s m edi cal care. In on e of t h ose c om m u n i cat i on s, H em ph i l lrequested an A R P f orm . B ased on h i s sub m i ssi on s, H em ph i l largu es Case: 09-30126 Document: 0051998536 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 30126

4 ( 1) t hathe ha s e s t ab l i s he d at r i ab l e i s s ue o f fac ta s t o a dm i ni s t r at ive e xha us t i o n, and(2) b e c aus e pr i s o n o f f i c i al s di d no tpr o vi de hi m a n AR P f o r m , t he com bi n ati on of

t h e m edi calcom pl ai n t s and t h e request f or an A R P f

orm sat i sf

i ed th e a d m in is tr a tiv e e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. H em p h i l l ’ s ar gu m en t t h a t he esta b lis h ed a tri a b l e issu e of fa ct as to adm i ni s t r at ive e xha us t i o n i s w i t ho ut m e r i t . H e m phil l c i t e s c as e s f r o m ot h er ci rcu i ts t o su p p ort h i s ar gu m en t t h a t a d i sp u tedi ssu e of fa ct as to a d m in is tr a tiv e e x h a u s tio n s h o u ldb e d e c id e db yaju r y . S ee B rah am v. C lan cy , 4 2 5 F .3 d1 7 7 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Marag l i a v. Maloney , 499 F
. S u pp . 2d 93 (D
. M ass. 2 0 0 7 ); R u sso v. Palm er , 9 9 0 F
. S u p p . 10 4 7 ( N
. D
. Il l
. 19 9 8 ). W e n ote th a t Bra ham h a s b e e n e x p lic itlyo v e r r u le db yth e S e c o n dC ir c u it, see Mac i asv . Ze nk , 495 F. 3d 37 , 43 –4 5 ( 2d Ci r . 20 07 ) , a nd the Se ve nt h Ci r c ui te f fe c t ive l y o ve r r ul e d R u sso in Pe r ezv . Wi s c o ns i n Dep ar t m e ntof Cor re c t i o ns , 1 8 2 F .3d 5 3 2 , 5 3 6 (7t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). I n Ma rag lia , t he pl ai nt i f f c l ai m e d t hathe f

i l e d ag r i e va nc e t hatw as i gno r e d. 499 F
. Su pp . 2d at 96. H ere, H em ph i l ldoes not cl ai m tha th e fil ed a gri evan ce; rat h er, he cl ai m s t h at hi s m edi calcom pl ai n t s an d A R P f orm request w ere enough t o r ai sea t r i abl e i ss ue o f fac t as t o the s at i sfac t i on o f hi s adm i ni st r at ive r e m e d ie s . W e d is a g r e e . I n W oo df or d v. N go , 548 U
. S. 81 ( 2006) , t he Suprem e Courtex pl ai ned t hat

“ pr o pe re xha us t i o n” und e rt he P LR A r e quir e s t he pr i s o ne rt o “ c o m pl [y] w i t h t he sy stem ’ s cri ti ca lpr oce d u ra lru l es.” I d. at 90. Th e Su pre m e Courtr eas oned that a“p r is o n e rw h o d o e s n o t w a n t t o p a r tic ip a te in th e p r is o n g r ie v a n c e s y s te m w ill h ave l i t t l e i n centive t o com pl y w i t h t h e syst em ’ s procedural rul es un l ess nonco m p li a nc ec a r r i e s as anct i on” and t her ef or e “ [t] he be nef

i t s of ex haust i on c an b e rea l i ze don l y if

the pr i son g r iev a n ce sy stem i s give n a fair opp ortu n i ty to Case: 09-30126 Document: 0051998536 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2010N o. 09- 30126

5 con siderthe griev a n ce.” I d. at 95. A ccor di n g t o W oodf ord , H em ph i l lm u stshow t h at he att em pted t o f u l l y com pl y w i t h t h e j ai l ’ s adm i n i st rat ive gri evan ce p r o c e d u r e s . T o properl y exh au sthi s c l ai m , H em ph i l lha d to com pl et e an A R P f orm , or its cle a rly -m a rk e deq u iva len t, a w a it a r e sp o n se , a n dth e n a p p e a l to th e S h e riff. H e m p h i l ldidn ot com p l ete ev en the f i rst step of th e S t. T a m m a n y P a ri sh J a il A R P , a n d thus di d notpr ope r l y e xhausthi s c l ai m . The m agi st r at e j udge c o r r e c tlyg r a n te ds u m m a r yju d g m e n t t o D e fe n d a n ts

–A p p e lle e s . E ven if t h e m edi calcom pl ai n t s an d A R P for m request sati sf i ed the f

i rst st ep of the S t . T am m an y P ari sh Jaila dm i n i st rat ive procedu re, H em ph i l lnev er ap pe al e d t o t he She r i f f
. I n Un d erw oodv. Wi lson , w e accept ed that t h e def i n i t i on of “ exhaust” i s “ ‘ t o t ake c om pl et e advant age of (l egal r em edi es )
. ’” 151 F. 3d 292, 295 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (c i t i ng W EB ST ER’ S N E W I NT’ L D I C T I ONARY 7 9 6 (3 ded
. 1 9 8 1 )). W e ha ve h el d that c om pl yi n g w i t h t h e f i rstst ep of

an adm i n i st rat ive gri evan ce procedu re w i l lnot s u f f i ce t o exh au st a d m i n i st rat ive rem edi es if t h e gri evan ce p r o c e d u r e co n te m p la te s a d d itio n a l s te p s . Se eWr ight , 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 3 5 8
. E v e n if H e m phil ls at i s f

i e d t he f

i r s t s t e p o f t he AR P, he di d no t f o l l o w t hr o ugh w i t h t he seco n dstep an dthe m a gistrate jud ge corre ctly g ra n tedsu m m a ryj u d gm en t t o D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees. I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fort he r e as o ns s e tf

o r t h a bo ve , w e A FFI RM t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ’ s g r ant of sum m ary j u dg m en tt o t h e D efen da n t
- A pp el l ees. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 09-30126 Document: 0051998536 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/07/2010