Stevenson v. Quaterman, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 23, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20140
Summary Calendar
FELIX STEVENSON, also known as Felicia Floyd,
also known as Ms. HolyZion,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
QUATERMAN, Director; RICHARDSON, Warden;
J. THOMPSON, Classification Chief,
Defendants-
Appellees.
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-4945
---------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Felix Stevenson, also known as Felicia Floyd, Texas prisoner # 539047, appeals the dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Because Stevenson filed
his civil rights suit after the enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), which became

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
effective on April 26, 1996, the amended version of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) applies to his case. See
Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 293 (5th Cir. 1998). Under amended § 1997e(a),
[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of
this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.
§ 1997e(a). "[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life,
whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive
force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
Stevenson argues that he submitted a Step 1 grievance that was returned because the issue
was not grievable and that his Step 2 grievance was then returned unprocessed. The record shows
that the Step 1 grievance was also returned as illegible/incomprehensible, and Stevenson was
instructed to resubmit the grievance, which he did not do. Because Stevenson did not pursue the
proper administrative remedies, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to
exhaust. See Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001) ("Nothing in the Prison
Litigation Reform Act . . . prescribes appropriate grievance procedures or enables judges, by creative
interpretation of the exhaustion doctrine, to prescribe or oversee prison grievance systems." (footnote
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --