Court Opinion

ID: 19238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:22:37+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:49.295016
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 99-40039
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________

GILBERTO TREVINO,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                              versus

TIMOTHY D. SANDERS, RN, Michael Unit;
ANICETO DOMINGUEZ, Doctor, Coffield Unit;
JOHN ZOND, Dr., Michael Unit; UNIDENTIFIED
RIGGLEMAN, X-ray Technician, Michael Unit;
LOUIS E. GIBSON, Medical Director, Michael
Unit; GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice,

                                            Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                        USDC No. 6:98-CV-538
_________________________________________________________________

                         November 11, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Gilberto Trevino, Texas prisoner # 578527, appeals from the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

complaint for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Trevino filed his suit after the effective date

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), and his case is thus

governed by the provisions therein.    See Underwood v. Wilson, 151

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1809 (1999).

The PLRA amended § 1997e to require that a prisoner must exhaust

his administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 action.            See

§ 1997e(a). Trevino did not exhaust administrative remedies before

filing   suit,   and   his   purported   exhaustion   of   administrative

remedies during the pendency of his suit does not satisfy the

requirements of § 1997e(a).         See Underwood, 151 F.3d at 296.

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED. Trevino’s

motions for production of documents, a temporary restraining order,

and an expedited ruling are DENIED.

                                   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

                                    2