IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60773
Summary Calendar
GABRIEL SCAFF MARTINEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF, MICHAEL L. STEPHENS,
WILLIAM BUCHANAN; UNKNOWN WISE;
UNKNOWN COGER; J.H. KEELS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:00-CV-238-BrS
--------------------
January 17, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gabriel Scaff Martinez, federal prisoner # 41821-004, appeals
the district court's dismissal of his action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Martinez alleged 1) that he was exposed to harmful levels
of second-hand tobacco smoke and excessive noise at FCI-Yazoo City
and 2) that the defendants retaliated against him for filing
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 01-60773
-2-
grievances about the smoke and noise. He alleged that the
defendants deprived him of medical care, confiscated his personal
property, interfered with his access to the courts, changed his job
and bedding assignments, and placed him in administrative
segregation. The district court dismissed most of Martinez's
claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
Martinez argues first that, contrary to the district court's
holding, his placement in administrative segregation constituted a
deprivation of a cognizable liberty interest because he was the
subject of retaliation. Martinez was placed in administrative
segregation in February 1999 and August 2000. With respect to the
February 1999 incident, we conclude from the record that even if
Martinez stated a cognizable liberty interest, he has failed to
show that his placement in administrative segregation was motivated
by retaliation. See McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th
Cir. 1998); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
With respect to the August 2000 incident, and again assuming that
Martinez stated a cognizable liberty interest, we conclude that
Martinez did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his claim
that this placement in administrative segregation was done in
retaliation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
In opposition to the dismissal of his remaining claims for
failure to exhaust, Martinez argues that he was not required to
exhaust administrative remedies each time prison officials acted in
No. 01-60773
-3-
retaliation. He also argues that his claims concerning the denial
of medical care and retaliation are not prison conditions and need
not be exhausted. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
mandatory and is intended to give corrections officials an
opportunity to address complaints internally before initiation of
a federal suit. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002);
Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).
Exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether
they involve general circumstances or particular episodes. Porter,
534 U.S. at 532; see also Richardson v. Spurlock, 260 F.3d 495, 499
(5th Cir. 2001). Martinez has not shown that he properly presented
his remaining claims to the regional and national levels as part of
the administrative appeals process. Accordingly, the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.