Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06365/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

RON 

MR. 

FI Lb D 

Uni~ States Co~rt ~f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 15 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

SIMMAT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) No . 92-6365 

v. ) (W .D. Oklahoma) 

) (D. C. No. CIV-92-757-D) HUNT, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App . P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9 . The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Ron Simmat, a State of Connecticut inmate presently 

incarcerated at FCI El Reno, appeals the dismissal, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), of his action against a "Mr. Hunt," 

allegedly the "safety and sanitation officer" at FCI El Reno. In 

his complaint Mr. Simmat alleged that in a discussion initiated by 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

- ---- ~-- -

Appellate Case: 92-6365 Document: 010110201738 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 1 
him with Hunt with respect to the prison's tame cat, Smokey, Mr . 

Hunt became abusive, hollered at h im, and threatened physical 

violence, to wit: "that he would personally hurt me [if] I 'reared 

[my] ugly head,'" and that "[if I wrote] the humane society [or 

complained] to the warden, I could expect to end up in 

the hospital where I would be so badly hurt that I would be unable 

to write to anyone." Complaint, Attachment 2, at 1. 

Mr. Simmat alleged in his complaint that Mr. Hunt's threats 

constituted criminal acts, both state and federal, and he 

requested various forms of declaratory relief. The district 

court, adopting the recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge dismissed the complaint both on procedural grounds and on 

the merits. The court concluded that Mr. Simmat had not exhausted 

his administrative remedies, and that the complaint did not state 

a federal cause of action. 

On appeal, Mr. Simmat recognizes that his complaint does not 

state an Eighth Amendment claim of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant at 4. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. 

Ct . 2321 (1991 ) . He does, however, aver that the verbal conduct 

in question should be "curbed," Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant at 4, 

and "the defendant is in the wrong. . 11 Id. at 5. He also 

alleges that Mr. Hunt's comments constituted "punishment" and, for 

the first time, he argues that such punishment was administered 

without due process. Id . at 1-2. 

In the proceedings below Mr. Simmat's suit was treated as an 

action pursuant to the principle established in Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6365 Document: 010110201738 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 2 
388, 396 (1971) . He apparently disavows that now, seeking to 

establish jurisdiction under the theory that Mr. Hunt committed 

the crime of interfering, by intimidation, with Mr. Simmat's 

enjoyment of a facility administered by the United States, 18 

U.S.C. § 24S(b) (1) (B), and that Mr. Simrnat was being punished 

without due process. Id. The argument, however characterized, 1 

does not confer federal jurisdiction apart from some sort of 

Bivens action, and no claim cognizable in a Bivens action has been 

stated. 

Mr. Simmat also attaches to his brief on appeal a form, to 

which he has added editorial comments, intended to show that his 

administrative remedies have been exhausted as a practical matter. 

We reject this attempt to add to the record on appeal. We also 

observe that the exhaustion arguments now being raised by Mr. 

Sirnmat were not raised in his complaint. To the contrary, in the 

complaint Mr . Sirnmat asserts that the alleged verbal threats were 

uttered by Mr. Hunt as an individual, and that the administrative 

process was not available to redress grievances of the nature 

described. 

We have carefully reviewed the file and conclude that the 

district court did not err in dismissing Mr. Sirnmat's complaint on 

either of the alternative grounds discussed, i . e., Mr. Sirnmat has 

not shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies; or, 

1 The effect of Mr. Sirnmat's argument, c arried to its 

conclu sion, i s that after due process (notice and an opportunity 

to be h eard) , Mr . Hunt could legitimately holler thre ats at him. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6365 Document: 010110201738 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 3 
in the alternative, the complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6365 Document: 010110201738 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 4