Case: 19-40384 Document: 00515601012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 14, 2020
No. 19-40384
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Tacorey Gilliam,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Anderson County Sheriff Department; FNU Higgins;
FNU Cholk; FNU Pierson; Tim Green; FNU Strout,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:17-CV-696
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Tacorey Gilliam, Texas prisoner # 02095241, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
civil rights complaint alleging numerous claims, including deliberate
indifference to his health and safety, negligence, cruel and unusual
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40384 Document: 00515601012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2020
No. 19-40384
punishment, retaliation, failure to investigate, and excessive use of force.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the suit because Gilliam had failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies, and Gilliam appeals. Although Gilliam requests
appointment of counsel, he has not made the required showing. See Cooper
v. Sheriff, Lubbock Cty., Tex., 929 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1991).
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this case
de novo. See Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010); see also
Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., 321 F.3d 503, 507 (5th Cir. 2003). Under
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), “[n]o 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.” The defendants
submitted Gilliam’s administrative remedy records and the jail’s grievance
plan, among other records, which support a determination that Gilliam did
not proceed beyond the first step of the three-step administrative remedy
procedure. Gilliam has neither produced competent summary judgment
evidence showing that he proceeded to the second and third step of the
grievance process nor challenged the veracity or reliability of these records.
Gilliam has therefore failed to show that there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether he proceeded to step two and three of the grievance
process. Gilliam’s conclusory assertions that he “attempted to exhaust” his
administrative remedies, that he was unaware prefiling exhaustion was
mandatory, and that there was a lack of grievance forms do not entitle him to
relief. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). The district court did
not err by granting summary judgment.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Gilliam’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
2