Court Opinion

ID: 9556905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-19 00:00:34.459753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:19.330596
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40597       Document: 00516863679             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/18/2023

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

                                                                             FILED
                                     No. 22-40597                      August 18, 2023
                                   Summary Calendar
                                   ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   Raul Gonzalez,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Sergeant Josie Resendez,

                                              Defendant—Appellee.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:18-CV-220
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Smith, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Raul Gonzalez, Texas prisoner # 2104383, sued Sergeant Josie
   Resendez, an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
   (TDCJ), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Resendez ordered the use of
   excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

           _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40597      Document: 00516863679           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                     No. 22-40597

   district court entered summary judgment for Resendez, finding that
   Gonzalez had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies by
   raising his excessive force claim only at the second step of the TDCJ’s two-
   step grievance process. Gonzalez contends that he exhausted his excessive
   force claim despite raising it only in his “step two” grievance because
   (1) TDCJ rules do not require claims to first be raised in a “step one”
   grievance and (2) the TDCJ denied his “step two” grievance on the merits.
   Gonzalez further analogizes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c),
   averring that his “step two” grievance effectively related back to his
   defective “step one” grievance.
          We review a 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). Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows 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).
          Gonzalez’s arguments are unavailing. TDCJ inmates “must pursue a
   grievance through both steps for it to be considered exhausted.” Johnson v.
   Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). The TDCJ’s “step one”
   grievance form explicitly instructs prisoners to state the “who, what, when,
   and where” of their grievance, which Gonzalez failed to do with respect to
   his excessive force claim. The “step two” form serves expressly as a means
   to review the resolution of a prisoner’s “step one” grievance; it does not
   suggest that prisoners may raise new claims for the first time. By raising his
   excessive force claim only at step two, Gonzalez failed to comply with prison
   grievance procedures. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 218; cf. Butts v. Martin, 877 F.3d
   571, 583 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Gonzalez is also incorrect that his excessive force claim was exhausted
   because the TDCJ denied his “step two” grievance on the merits. The

                                          2
Case: 22-40597     Document: 00516863679          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                   No. 22-40597

   TDCJ’s response to Gonzalez’s “step two” grievance focused exclusively
   on his properly raised claim of improper medical care. The TDCJ did not
   resolve Gonzalez’s complaint of excessive force on substantive grounds. See
   Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323, 331 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004). Lastly, in light of the
   TDCJ’s grievance rules, Gonzalez’s reliance on Rule 15(c) is misplaced.
         Gonzalez fails to show a genuine and material dispute as to whether
   he exhausted his available administrative remedies for purposes of § 1983.
   See Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 272 (5th Cir. 2010). The district court
   thus correctly entered judgment for Resendez as a matter of law. The
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                         3