United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 03-10813 Clerk
Conference Calendar
FRANCISCO GOMEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL D. HILL; UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF,
Number One-Allred Unit; UNKNOWN MEDICAL
STAFF, Number Two-Allred Unit; UNKNOWN
MEDICAL STAFF, Number Three-Allred Unit;
UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF, Number One-Clements
Unit; UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF, Number
Two-Clements Unit; UNKNOWN MEDICAL STAFF,
Number Three-Clements Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:02-CV-81-R
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Gomez, Texas prisoner #742398, appeals from the
dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
On appeal, Gomez asserts that he was not required to exhaust
administrative remedies because: (1) he was seeking monetary
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10813
-2-
damages, which were not available from the administrative
process; (2) he should be excused from fulfilling the exhaustion
requirement due to the fact that his administrative grievance was
erroneously denied as untimely; and (3) he fulfilled the
exhaustion requirement by submitting informal complaints to
various prison officials. We review the district court’s
dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) de novo. See Powe v. Ennis,
177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999).
Gomez’s first two arguments lack merit under applicable
precedent. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 740-41 (2001)
(exhaustion is required even where money damages are sought); id.
at 741 n.6 (“we will not read futility or other exceptions into
statutory exhaustion requirements”). His third argument relies
solely upon Wyatt v. Leonard, 193 F.3d 876, 878 (6th Cir. 1999),
which is not applicable to the instant case because, unlike in
Wyatt, the instant alleged constitutional violation did not occur
prior to passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Gomez also contends that the district court erred by
dismissing his instant lawsuit without conducting a Spears1
hearing. Because additional factual development would not have
aided Gomez in fulfilling the exhaustion requirement, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his
lawsuit without conducting a Spears hearing.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
1
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).