United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10785
Conference Calendar
DERRICK DWAYNE RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GREGORY BOLAND, ET AL.,
Defendants,
GREGORY BOLAND; BRUCE SHIELDS; MARTIN C. LANSFORD;
OMAR S. SANCHEZ; JACK BORDEN; RENE MENDOZA; BAKER;
J. RIDGE; WAYNE SCOTT; JOSEPH K. PRICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:00-CV-388
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Derrick Dwayne Richardson, Texas prisoner # 610689, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Because
Richardson’s grievances were denied as untimely, he did not
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Days v. Johnson, 322
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10785
-2-
F.3d 863, 866-67 (5th Cir. 2003); Marsh v. Jones, 53 F.3d 707,
710 (5th Cir. 1995). Richardson has not explained the delay in
filing his grievances or shown that any defenses to the
exhaustion requirement such as waiver, estoppel, or equitable
tolling are applicable. See Days, 322 F.3d at 866. This court
will not consider Richardson’s argument, raised for the first
time on appeal, that he was not required to exhaust
administrative remedies because he was seeking monetary relief
which is not available through the administrative process. See
Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999). Nonetheless, prisoners must exhaust administrative
remedies without regard to whether monetary relief is available.
See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740 (2001). The district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.