TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robinson v. Wheeler

Arthur Ray ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Edgar Tommy WHEELER; Burl Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary; Assistant Warden Donald Davis; Colonel Joseph Lamartinere; Colonel Kevin Benjamin, Defendants-Appellees

Robinson v. Wheeler, 338 F. App'x 437 (5th Cir. 2009)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 27, 2009
Docket
No. 08-31025
Judges
King, Barksdale, Garza
Citations
338 F. App'x 437
Status
Unpublished

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

* Arthur Ray Robinson, Louisiana prisoner # 425796, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , claiming prison officials violated his rights by: requiring him to perform tasks that were inconsistent with his medical restrictions; and failing to provide adequate medical treatment. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending Robinson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court found: Robinson’s step one grievance had been rejected because it presented multiple claims; and he had not resubmitted the individual claims in proper form. (The form rejecting Robinson’s step one grievance specifically advised him he could resubmit his grievance in the proper form.) Accordingly, the district court: determined Robinson had not exhausted his administrative remedies for the individual claims he sought to present in this action; granted summary judgment; and dismissed the complaint.

A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir.2008). Such judgment is proper if “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, exhaustion of available administrative remedies is a threshold requirement for filing a prisoner § 1983 action. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 523-32 , 122 S.Ct. 983 , 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). Robinson contends the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there were disputed issues of fact. Although there may be such issues concerning the merits of his claims, he has shown no such dispute regarding failure to exhaust his administrative remedies for those claims.

Robinson also maintains he is not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he seeks only monetary damages. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), exhaustion is required for actions seeking monetary damages, even if they are not available in the prison grievance proceeding.

Porter, 534 U.S. at 524 , 122 S.Ct. 983 .

AFFIRMED.

* 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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 36 cases

View all citing references →
2012: 22020: 32021: 62022: 32023: 92024: 22025: 92026: 220122026peak 2023 · 9

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Young v. MSP Parchman State PrisonNo. 4:23-cv-00221 (N.D. Miss. May 2, 2025)
  2. Daylon Carl Waldrop v. Supt. Chris LodenNo. 3:24-cv-00311 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 27, 2026)
  3. Harth v. Mississippi Department of CorrectionNo. 4:20-cv-00047 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 7, 2023)
  4. Flowers v. MeeksNo. 4:23-cv-00131 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 17, 2024)
  5. Torrey v. VitacorNo. 4:24-cv-00020 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 2, 2025)
  6. Jordan v. MacDonaldNo. 4:24-cv-00009 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2025)

Most recent

  1. Thaddeus Jarvis v. Burl CainNo. 4:24-cv-00003 (N.D. Miss. May 13, 2026)
  2. Daylon Carl Waldrop v. Supt. Chris LodenNo. 3:24-cv-00311 (N.D. Miss. Feb. 27, 2026)
  3. Oscar Roby v. MDOCNo. 4:24-cv-00021 (N.D. Miss. Oct. 17, 2025)
  4. Jordan v. MacDonaldNo. 4:24-cv-00009 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 8, 2025)
  5. CAPA Consulting, LLC v. Conroe Senior Living, LLCNo. 3:23-cv-00203 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2025)
  6. Jordan v. MacDonaldNo. 4:24-cv-00009 (N.D. Miss. June 2, 2025)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) 5,031
Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2008) 170

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list