United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT May 10, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30200
Summary Calendar
DARRIN ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DIXON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE; JAMES M. LEBLANC; RICHARD L.
STALDER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(3:04-CV-471)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darrin Robinson, Louisiana prisoner number 158443, appeals,
pro se, the district court’s dismissal, for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
being placed in extended lockdown and made to shower and exercise
while wearing restraints. Robinson contends: the district court
erred in sua sponte dismissing his action; and its exhaustion
determination was erroneous because it was based on a faulty
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
administrative record and because he exhausted his remedies when he
filed grievances that were ignored.
“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a
prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility until such administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). A dismissal for want of
exhaustion under § 1997e is based on the pleadings alone, and no
evidence concerning exhaustion need be adduced. Underwood v.
Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S.
1133 (1999). Section 1997e’s exhaustion requirement should be
enforced unless a valid defense exists. Wendell v. Asher, 162 F.3d
887, 890-91 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal under § 1997e is reviewed
de novo. Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999).
Robinson’s contentions lack merit. The district court did not
err in sua sponte raising the exhaustion issue. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e; see also Wendell, 162 F.3d at 889. Robinson’s
administrative-record contention lacks merit because the district
court proceeded on the belief that Robinson had filed the documents
claimed to have been filed. Finally, Robinson has not established
that the district court’s determination that his action should be
dismissed for want of exhaustion was flawed. As the district court
determined, Robinson’s allegations that he properly exhausted his
administrative remedies fail because his own pleadings demonstrate
he failed to exhaust all available remedies. See Underwood, 151
F.3d at 294.
AFFIRMED