Court Opinion

ID: 9894726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 18:00:32.341542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:27.136282
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30759        Document: 00516953759             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/02/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                         November 2, 2023
                                      No. 22-30759
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                Clerk
                                    ____________

   Gator Mitchell,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Robert Goings, Sergeant; John Craine, Sergeant; Gary King,
   Sergeant; Brink Hillman, Captain; Robert Tanner, Warden,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:20-CV-1333
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Gator Mitchell, former Louisiana prisoner # 711538, raised claims of
   excessive force and failure to protect under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law
   claims of negligence and respondeat superior. He contests the magistrate
   judge’s dismissal without prejudice of his claims for failure to exhaust. See
   42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (requiring prisoners to exhaust administrative
         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30759     Document: 00516953759          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/02/2023

                                   No. 22-30759

   remedies). Mitchell asserts: he exhausted his administrative remedies;
   alternatively, he was not required to exhaust them because he was released
   from Louisiana custody during the pendency of this appeal; and prison
   officials thwarted his attempt to use the administrative-review process.
          Defendants’ various summary-judgment and Rule 12(b)(6) motions to
   dismiss were granted, and Mitchell’s claims against all defendants were
   dismissed without prejudice. For purposes of our review, we need not repeat
   the well-known standards for our de novo review of summary-judgments and
   Rule 12(b)(6) motions. E.g., Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir.
   2010) (outlining summary-judgment standard); Ferguson v. Bank of N.Y.
   Mellon Corp., 802 F.3d 777, 780 (5th Cir. 2015) (outlining Rule 12(b)(6)
   standard).
          Mitchell’s contentions are unavailing. First, the Louisiana
   Administrative Code permits a prisoner to proceed to the second step of the
   administrative process if a first-step response is not received within the
   prescribed time limit. See La. Admin. Code tit. 22, pt. I, § 325(J)(1)(c)
   (“[E]xpiration of response time limits shall entitle the offender to move on
   to the next step in the process”.); e.g., Bargher v. White, 928 F.3d 439, 447
   (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining administrative process). Second, despite his
   release from Louisiana custody, Mitchell was still bound by the exhaustion
   requirement because he filed his action while in custody. See, e.g., Williams
   v. Henagan, 595 F.3d 610, 619 (5th Cir. 2010) (“[Defendant]’s release during
   the pendency of the suit does not relieve him the obligation to comply with
   42 U.S.C. § 1997e”.). Third, Mitchell fails to support his contention that
   prison officials thwarted his attempt to complete the administrative process.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         2