Xavier Cravenwolfe v. Robert Carter, No. 16-2665 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Murphy, Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prison civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the ground plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. [ November 28, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2665 ___________________________ Xavier Cravenwolfe lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Robert Carter, ACI Director; Tim Lowery, ACI Furniture Factory Plant Manager; Randal Raper, ACI Furniture Factory Floor Manager lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2016 Filed: November 29, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Xavier Cravenwolfe appeals after the district court1 dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice, following its determination that Cravenwolfe failed to exhaust administrative remedies. We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination, as the record showed beyond genuine dispute that Cravenwolfe omitted material information that was required on a grievance appeal form. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 by prisoner until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted); King v. Iowa Dep’t. of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of district court’s interpretation of § 1997e(a)); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007) (prison’s administrative exhaustion requirements govern whether exhaustion has occurred); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (proper exhaustion demands compliance with prison’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (inmate’s subjective beliefs about grievance process cannot excuse exhaustion requirement). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Cravenwolfe’s pending motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
