Court Opinion

ID: 9412911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 22:00:38.741436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.240194
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40695        Document: 00516842865             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                            FILED
                                     ____________
                                                                                 August 1, 2023
                                      No. 22-40695                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Frank W. Rodriguez, Jr.,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Mohamad Touhami; John Doe One; John Doe Two; John
   Doe Three; Joe Collins; Frank Rigsby,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 9:20-CV-140
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Stewart, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Frank W. Rodriguez, Jr., Texas prisoner # 01667156, appeals the
   district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit after granting the
   motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Mohamad Touhami. In his
   suit, Rodriguez alleged that Touhami and other correctional officers used

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40695      Document: 00516842865             Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                       No. 22-40695

   excessive force against Rodriguez and that other officers witnessed the
   incident and failed to intervene.
          Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in its finding that he
   failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the instant suit. He
   contends that he should be excepted from the exhaustion requirement
   because the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to prevent him from filing
   grievances. Rodriguez further avers that filing a grievance would have been
   futile and that he was unable to file a grievance because he was in solitary
   confinement at some point and lacked supplies such as a pen.
          “We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
   same standards as the district court.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th
   Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In general,
   summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “that there is no
   genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
   as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
   U.S. 317, 322 (1986). All facts and inferences are construed in the light most
   favorable to the nonmoving party. Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624,
   627 (5th Cir. 2012).
          Rodriguez has not demonstrated a genuine factual dispute regarding
   his claim that he should be excepted from the exhaustion requirement
   because: (1) it would have been futile to file grievances; (2) he was in
   segregation and lacked writing supplies; and (3) the defendants conspired to
   impede his access to grievance forms. These assertions are conclusional and,
   even if accepted as true, are belied by the record, especially by the numerous
   grievances Rodriguez filed after the alleged use-of-force incident, albeit
   related to different claims. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643-44 (2016);
   Duffie v. United States, 600 F.3d 362, 371 (5th Cir. 2010); Alexander v. Tippah
   Cnty., 351 F.3d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 2003); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374

                                                2
Case: 22-40695       Document: 00516842865         Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/01/2023

                                    No. 22-40695

   (5th Cir. 2005); Ferrington v. La. Dep’t of Corrs., 315 F.3d 529, 532 (5th Cir.
   2002).
            Additionally, Rodriguez seemingly argues that he exhausted his
   administrative remedies because he backdated his grievance. Because he did
   not raise that argument in the district court, we review only for plain error.
   See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co., 131 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 1997).
   However, Rodriguez has not demonstrated any reversible error related to his
   backdating argument. See id.
            In light of the foregoing discussion and construing the facts in his
   favor, Rodriguez has not shown a genuine factual dispute related to his failure
   to exhaust administrative remedies and, therefore, the district court did not
   err in granting Touhami’s motion for summary judgment. See Celotex Corp.,
   477 U.S. at 322; Poole, 691 F.3d at 627.
            Rodriguez also argues that the district court erred in denying his
   motion for appointment of counsel. However, he has not shown exceptional
   circumstances that merited appointment of counsel, and thus, the district
   court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Naranjo v.
   Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015).
            The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              3