Truman v. William, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20779
Conference Calendar
MICHAEL ANTHONY TRUMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM W. HARLEY, JR., Lieutenant;
ROBERT A. WILLIAM, Correctional Officer III,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-723
--------------------
June 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Anthony Truman, Texas prisoner No. 633400, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Truman does not dispute that he failed to
exhaust his prison administrative remedies before filing suit,
but he contends that exhaustion was not required because his
complaint sought monetary damages only. It is obvious from the
record that Truman was required to exhaust his administrative

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20779
-2-
remedies prior to filing suit because he sought both injunctive
and monetary relief in his administrative filings and his
district court complaint. Wright v. Hollingsworth, 201 F.3d 663,
665 (5th Cir. 2000); Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 292-93
(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1133 (1999). The
district court was not required to inquire into the adequacy of
the available administrative remedies prior to dismissing the
complaint for failure to exhaust. See § 1997e; Underwood, 151
F.3d at 294. We reject Truman’s argument that the § 1997e
exhaustion requirement does not apply to complaints alleging
excessive force. Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, 888, 890-91
(5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --