Case Name: Reginald WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant VONDA; K. Rafter; Captain Michael E. Kitchens; Carolyn Field; Chana Davis; Assistant Warden Warner G. Lumpkins, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-28
Citations: 223 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 06-41110
Parties: Reginald WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant VONDA; K. Rafter; Captain Michael E. Kitchens; Carolyn Field; Chana Davis; Assistant Warden Warner G. Lumpkins, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 431–431

Head Matter:
Reginald WEAVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lieutenant VONDA; K. Rafter; Captain Michael E. Kitchens; Carolyn Field; Chana Davis; Assistant Warden Warner G. Lumpkins, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-41110
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 28, 2007.
Reginald Wayne Weaver, Rosharon, TX, pro se.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Weaver, a Texas prisoner, appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Weaver has filed motions in this court requesting appointment of counsel, permission to supplement the record, production of documents, and extraordinary relief in the form of a temporary restraining order and/or permanent injunction forbidding the defendants from tampering with his mail. The motions are denied.
Weaver's complaint was dismissed before service on the defendants. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and inmates are not required to plead specially or to demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. Jones v. Bock, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 910, 921, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
Accordingly, the judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTIONS DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.