Enriquez Sanchez v. Davis et al, No. 4:2016cv02356 - Document 17 (S.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Complaint (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Enriquez Sanchez v. Davis et al Doc. 17 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION RICARDO ENRIQUEZ SANCHEZ, TDCJ #1745089, David J. Bradley, Clerk § § § Plaintiff, September 23, 2016 § § v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2356 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiff, Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez (TDCJ #1745089), has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. violations of his civil rights § 1983 ("Complaint"), alleging (Docket Entry No. 1) . Because plaintiff is incarcerated, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and dismiss the Complaint, in whole or in part, if it determines that the Complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." § 1915A (b) . concludes After considering all of the pleadings, that this case must be dismissed for 28 U.S.C. the court the reasons explained below. I. Background Sanchez is currently incarcerated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") at Dockets.Justia.com the Jester III Unit. 1 Sanchez has filed this lawsuit against the following defendants: Warden James ( 1) TDCJ Director Lorie Davis, Jones, medical provider at (3) Officer Pittman, the Huntsville Unit, (6) Captain P. Choate, (4) ( 5) an Dr. ( 2) Senior unidentified R. Friedman, (7) an unidentified transportation officer from the Estelle Unit, and (8) an unidentified property officer at the Beto Unit. 2 While incarcerated at the Huntsville Unit, Sanchez was assigned to work in the textile factory, where he was supervised by Officer Pittman. 3 Sanchez claims that on April 1, 2016, Pittman forced him to perform work that he was not trained for or able to do. 4 fell and broke his leg and hand as a result. 5 Sanchez Thereafter, Sanchez alleges that he was denied proper medical attention, that he was roughly placed in an ambulance while being transported to another unit, and that certain items of his property were stolen. 6 In the pending Complaint, which was executed on July 27, 2016, Sanchez seeks nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages. 7 1 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 1. 2 Id. at 3 3 Id. at 1 6. 31 4. 4 Id. at 4. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 3 7 1 4I 6. Id. at 4. -2- The court concludes, however, that the Complaint must be dismissed because it is evident that Sanchez did not exhaust administrative remedies before he filed this lawsuit. II. Sanchez's Reform Complaint ( \\ PLRA" ) Act Discussion is governed by which I requires the Prison Litigation prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. that § § 1997e(a). 1997e(a) See The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized mandates exhaustion of all administrative procedures before an inmate can file any suit challenging prison conditions. See Booth v. Churner, 121 S. Ct. 1819, 1825 (2001) Porter v. Nussle, 122 S. Ct. 983, 988 (2002) S. Ct. 910, 2378, 918-19 2382-83 (2007) (2006) i Woodford v. Ngo, 126 see also Jones v. Bock, i i 127 S. Ct. (confirming that "[t] here is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court"). It is well established that administrative grievance process. 503, 515 (5th Cir. 2004) 891 Step (5th Cir. 1 1998) entails i TDCJ has a formal two-step See Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F. 3d see also Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d 887, (outlining the two-step procedure, submitting an administrative grievance which at at the institutional level followed by a Step 2 appeal if the result is unfavorable) . A Texas prisoner must pursue a grievance through both steps to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. -3- See Johnson, 385 F.3d at 515 (citing Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001)). Sanchez concedes in his Complaint that he did not exhaust all steps of the grievance procedure with respect to his claims before filing this action. 8 The Fifth Circuit has emphasized that "pre-filing exhaustion of prior grievance process is mandatory" and that district courts lack discretion to excuse a prisoner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 785, 788 Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d Where the face of the complaint makes (5th Cir. 2012). clear that an inmate has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, a district court may dismiss the complaint without requesting an answer from the defendants. 272 n.3 (5th Cir. 2010) See Dillon v. Rogers, (noting that sua sponte 596 F.3d 260, dismissal is appropriate where "failure to exhaust is apparent on the face of a plaintiff's complaint") 327-28 (5th Cir. 2007)). (citing Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, Because Sanchez failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court, his Complaint must be dismissed for failure to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 8 Complaint, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 3. On September 13, 2016, Sanchez filed a lengthy submission, which contains several unprocessed Step 1 grievances pertaining to his claims of inadequate medical care. See "Jurisdiction and Venue," Docket Entry No. 12-3, pp. 11-16, 19-28. There are no processed Step 2 grievances, however, and there is no other indication that Sanchez completed both steps of the grievance process before he executed his Complaint on July 27, 2016. -4- III. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS that the Complaint filed by Ricardo Enrique Sanchez (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 23rd day of September, 2016. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
