Eric Jones v. E. Sparkman, 669 F. App'x 776

Plaintiff Eric De’Juan Jones, a former Mississippi prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claiming prison officials forcibly injected him with antipsychotic medication without consent.
He also alleged a conspiracy to deprive him of earned good time credits; he had pursued administrative remedies relating to the lost good time credits.
District court dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the forcible-injection/medical claims.
Jones argued his medical claims should be deemed exhausted because they were part of the same conspiracy to deprive him of good time credits.
He alternatively argued exhaustion should be excused due to imminent danger and that a jury should decide exhaustion; he also sought counsel and consolidation with a § 2254 proceeding.
Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal; motions for counsel and consolidation were denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical claims were exhausted	Medical claims are effectively exhausted because they arise from the same conspiracy as the exhausted good-time-credit claims	Administrative exhaustion for good-time claims does not cover separate medical/forcible-injection claims	Held: No — medical claims were not exhausted and are distinct from good-time claims
Whether exhaustion should be excused for imminent danger	Jones asserted imminent danger from forced injections, excusing exhaustion	Defendants maintained exhaustion is required and no evidence of ongoing harm existed	Held: No — imminent danger not established (later release and no record of physical harm)
Whether a jury should decide exhaustion	Jones asked for a jury to decide exhaustion issues	Defendants asserted exhaustion is a procedural requirement for courts, not juries	Held: No — exhaustion is a procedural prerequisite for suit and decided by the court
Whether to appoint counsel / consolidate with § 2254	Jones moved for counsel and consolidation with his § 2254 action	Defendants opposed	Held: Motions denied

Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for exhaustion dismissal)
Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before filing § 1983)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper exhaustion requires compliance with administrative procedural rules)
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (exhaustion must be completed before filing suit)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (failure to brief an issue constitutes abandonment)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (same on briefing/abandonment)
Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990) (conclusory conspiracy allegations are insufficient to raise a constitutional claim)