Case Name: Enciso Rodrigo ACEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. FELTS; Markley, Officer; Greir, Special Investigator Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-18
Citations: 105 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 04-30235
Parties: Enciso Rodrigo ACEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. FELTS; Markley, Officer; Greir, Special Investigator Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 105
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
Enciso Rodrigo ACEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. FELTS; Markley, Officer; Greir, Special Investigator Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-30235.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 18, 2004.
Enciso Rodrigo Aceves, pro se, Three Rivers, TX, Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Enciso Rodrigo Aceves, federal prisoner # 17690-198, appeals the dismissal for failure to exhaust of his pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), in which he alleged that the defendants failed to protect him from an attack by fellow inmates.
Because Aceves's appeal to the Bureau of Prisons General Counsel was pending at the time that he filed the instant suit, the district court did not err in dismissing the action for failure to exhaust. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002); Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir.1999). Aceves's ignorance of the law or his lack of legal assistance does not relieve Aceves of his obligation to exhaust available administrative remedies. See Fisher v. Johnson, 174 F.3d 710, 712-14 (5th Cir.1999); Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 43 (5th Cir.1996). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.