Singleton v. Sweet

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 13, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-41490
Summary Calendar
NATHANIEL KEITH SINGLETON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LIEUTENANT SWEET,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-255
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nathaniel Singleton, a former Texas prison inmate, appeals
the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against prison guard
Bernard Sweet. The district court dismissed Singleton’s case
without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. Dismissals for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) are reviewed de
novo. Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999).
The district court concluded that the Step 1 and 2
grievances that Singleton produced involved an appeal of a

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-41490
-2-
disciplinary procedure and did not relate to the excessive force
claim that Singleton raised in his complaint. A “grievance
should be considered sufficient to the extent that the grievance
gives officials a fair opportunity to address the problem that
will later form the basis of the lawsuit.” Johnson v. Johnson,
385 F.3d 503, 517 (5th Cir. 2004). The record shows that the
investigating officer responded to Singleton’s Step 2 grievance
in part by opening an investigation of Singleton’s excessive
force allegations. Thus, it is unclear whether the grievance
forms on which Singleton relies relate only to the appeal of a
disciplinary procedure.
Nevertheless, we need not reach the question whether
Singleton’s grievance was sufficient to provide notice of this
claim, as we affirm the dismissal for failure to exhaust on an
alternative ground. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296
(5th Cir. 1998). At the time Singleton filed his complaint, he
had not completed the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
grievance process. Generally, an inmate must exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing a § 1983 lawsuit. Wendell
v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998). Because
Singleton did not do so, the district court did not err in
dismissing the case. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --