Court Opinion

ID: 9951419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:43.606954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:08.501259
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60031     Document: 98-1     Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

        United States Court of Appeals
             for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                           ____________
                                                                       FILED
                            No. 23-60031                         March 15, 2024
                          Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                          ____________                                 Clerk

John Milton Saquing,

                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                 versus

Jeworski Mallett, Acting Commissioner, Mississippi Department of
Corrections; Gloria Perry, Medical Director, Mississippi Department of
Corrections; One Unnamed Physician, Medical Doctor; Ronald
Ellzy Woodall, South Mississippi Correctional Institution Medical
Director; One Unnamed Director, of Wexford Medical; Wexford
Medical, as an entity; One Unnamed Director, of Centurion
Medical; Centurion Medical, as an entity; John Doe, Director of
Records; Governor Tate Reeves, in his official capacity,

                                       Defendants—Appellees.
              ______________________________

              Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Mississippi
                        USDC No. 3:20-CV-182
              ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 23-60031            Document: 98-1         Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                       No. 23-60031

Per Curiam: *
       John Milton Saquing, Mississippi prisoner # 114935, appeals the
dismissal of his Section 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. He also challenges the denial of his motions to issue subpoenas, to
amend or supplement his complaint to add new defendants and claims, and
to appoint counsel. He requests leave to file a reply brief out of time, which
is GRANTED, and to strike the appellees’ letter brief, which is DENIED.
       We review a dismissal on “summary judgment de novo, using the same
standard as that employed by the district court.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684
F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)
does not allow an inmate to file a Section 1983 complaint “until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”                     42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a).        Saquing’s argument, liberally construed, is that the
Administrative Remedy Program (“ARP”) provided by the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) was not a legitimately available
remedy. See Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643–44 (2016).
       As part of the ARP, Saquing filed the relevant grievance in January
2020, raising claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
and requesting monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief.                  The ARP
rejected this grievance because the program was not empowered to award
monetary damages. The ARP was not unavailable simply because monetary
relief was unavailable. Valentine v. Collier, 978 F.3d 154, 161 (5th Cir. 2020).
Because ARP remedies were “available” under the PLRA, Saquing was
required to file a corrected grievance within five days of receiving the
rejection per ARP rules. See id. He did not do so.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

                                             2
Case: 23-60031       Document: 98-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                 No. 23-60031

       As to his requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, Saquing’s lack
of understanding of the ARP does not excuse his failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Davis v. Fernandez, 798 F.3d 290, 295 (5th Cir.
2015). Saquing suggests his failure to exhaust should be excused for equitable
reasons, but exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Valentine, 978 F.3d
at 161–62. Saquing also contends that he did not have Internet access, a
physical copy of the MDOC’s Inmate Handbook, or any instructions on how
to remedy his rejected grievance. See Ross, 578 U.S. at 643–44. The record
demonstrates, however, that Saquing requested and received a current copy
of MDOC’s Standard Operating Procedure 20-08, which explained the ARP
procedures.   See Huskey v. Jones, 45 F.4th 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2022).
Accordingly, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to
the defendants. See id. at 832–33. Further, the district court did not err by
dismissing the case with prejudice because any grievance related to the
allegations in the complaint would be untimely pursuant to the ARP. See
Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592, 607 (5th Cir. 2007).
       Regarding Saquing’s challenges to the denial of his motions to amend
his complaint, to issue subpoenas, and to appoint counsel, the defendants
assert that we lack jurisdiction because Saquing failed to designate these
specific orders in his notice of appeal, which cited only the order granting
summary judgment. See Pope v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 937 F.2d 258, 266
(5th Cir. 1991). With liberal construction, however, it is clear that Saquing
intended to appeal the entire case, so we have jurisdiction to consider the
final judgment and any orders issued prior to it. Trust Co. Bank v. U.S.
Gypsum Co., 950 F.2d 1144, 1147–48 (5th Cir. 1992).
       In his motions to join new defendants, Saquing failed to allege that the
proposed defendants were personally involved in or causally connected to the
deprivation of any constitutional right. See Lozano v. Smith, 718 F.2d 756,
768 (5th Cir. 1983). Moreover, as to the proposed defendants VitalCore

                                      3
Case: 23-60031        Document: 98-1       Page: 4     Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                  No. 23-60031

Health, the VitalCore CEO, and two MDOC doctors, Saquing failed to allege
any specific actions undertaken by any specific proposed defendant or
affiliated person. See id. (requiring personal involvement or a “causal
connection” between a constitutional violation and a defendant’s actions for
liability). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
leave to supplement the complaint with such futile claims. See Haggard v.
Bank of Ozarks Inc., 668 F.3d 196, 202 (5th Cir. 2012).
       Concerning Saquing’s appeal of the denial of his motions to issue
subpoenas, the materials sought were “unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative” to the extent that he sought discovery of his medical records
from MDOC and the Southern Eye Center.                   Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(i). As to the subpoenas directed at Centurion Medical and
VitalCore, the requested contracts between MDOC and those entities were
irrelevant to Saquing’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), (b)(2)(C)(iii). Additionally, Saquing did
not state, either in the district court or on appeal, how the discovery sought
would have changed the nature of his complaint. Accordingly, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions to issue subpoenas.
See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000).
       Finally, addressing the denial of Saquing’s numerous motions for
appointment of counsel, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
finding that he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Thompson
v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 67 F.4th 275, 283 (5th Cir. 2023). To the extent
Saquing challenges the district court’s refusal to appoint a fellow inmate as
counsel, his arguments fail. See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021–22
(5th Cir. 1998). AFFIRMED.

                                       4