Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01149/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JESUS JOHN HERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of .t\ppeaJ 

Tenth Cirruit 5 

0 J T 2 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

ANTHONY BELASKI, Warden 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 90-1149 

(D.C. No. 89-F-2132) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Jesus John Hernandez appeals prose from 

the dismissal of his Bivens action alleging violation of his 

constitutional rights by authorities at the Federal Corrections 

Institution at Englewood, Colorado. Hernandez alleged that prison 

authorities 1) violated his right to court access by temporarily 

confiscating his legal materials and those of fellow prisoners who 

he was assisting, and 2) violated his right to due process 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1149 Document: 010110064911 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
transferring him to a prison facility in La Tuna, New Mexico after 

a disciplinary hearing. The district court adopted the 

magistrate's findings that Hernandez 1) failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies on his first claim and 2) had no 

constitutional interest in being confined at a particular 

correctional facility. The district court found that Hernandez 

had failed to state a claim for relief and dismissed his action 

sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

I. 

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

authorizes a court to dismiss a claim on the basis of a 

dispositive issue of law. Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 

1832 (1989). A district court may upon its own motion note the 

inadequacy of a complaint and dismiss it for failure to state a 

claim. SAC. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: 

Civil§ 1357 at 301 (2d ed. 1990). However, while 28 U.S.C. 

1915(d) allows district courts to "pierce the veil of the 

complaint's factual allegations," Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 1833, Fed 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) requires that the court accept all of 

plaintiff's factual assertions as true, see Berkovitz v. United 

States, 486 U.S. 531, 540 (1988). 

A liberal reading of Hernandez's prose complaint, see Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 519-20 (1972), reveals that he claims 

either to have exhausted all administrative remedies or to being 

prevented from doing so by prison authorities. This is not a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1149 Document: 010110064911 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
situation in which the plaintiff has failed to allege exhaustion 

of administrative remedies and dismissal without prejudice is 

warranted under Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 1979). 

Rather, the district court was required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) to take Hernandez's factual allegations at face value and 

consequently erred in finding that he failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies. However, because we find that Hernandez 

failed to effectuate service of process upon the defendants in 

this action, we affirm the district court's dismissal on other 

grounds. See Nero v. Cherokee Nation of Okla., 892 F.2d 1457, 

1459 (10th Cir. 1989). 

A plaintiff may maintain an action for money damages pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) when "a 

federal official acting under color of authority engaged in 

unconstitutional conduct and is then held to account for that 

conduct in his individual capacity." Pleasant v. Lovell, 876 F.2d 

787, 794 (10th Cir. 1989). However, when a plaintiff seeks money 

damages from a federal official in his individual capacity in a 

Bivens action, plaintiff must effectuate personal service pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(l). Johnson v. Horne, 875 F.2d 1415, 1424 

(9th Cir. 1989); Del Raine v. Carlson, 826 F.2d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 

1987) see generally 4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and 

Procedure: Civil§ 1107 at 163 (2d ed. 1990) (federal officials 

sued in their individual capacities must be personally served). 

In the instant case, Hernandez brought suit against six 

officials of the Englewood correctional facility in their 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1149 Document: 010110064911 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3 
individual capacities seeking money damages. However, Hernandez 

failed to obtain personal service on any of these defendants 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(l). Although Rule 65 of the 

District of Colorado Local Rules of Practice does not require 

service of process in some prose prisoner petitions, Rule 65 only 

applies to habeas corpus actions brought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 & 

2255, motions under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil 

rights actions. Hernandez's Bivens action therefore must be 

dismissed without prejudice for inadequate service of process. 

We agree with the district court that Hernandez could not 

challenge the confiscation of his fellow prisoners' legal papers. 

To have standing to assert a constitutional claim, a plaintiff 

must allege a distinct and palpable injury fairly traceable to 

defendant's conduct. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental 

Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 72 (1978) (quotations omitted). A 

liberal reading of Hernandez's complaint does not reveal any 

allegation of personal injury accruing as a result of the 

confiscation of his fellow inmates' legal papers. Therefore, 

although Hernandez may challenge prison officials' confiscation of 

his personal legal papers as a denial of his right to court 

access, he lacks standing to challenge the confiscation his fellow 

inmates' papers. 

II. 

Hernandez does not specifically appeal the district court's 

holding that he had no constitutionally-protected interest in 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1149 Document: 010110064911 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 4 
remaining at the Englewood correctional facility. However, giving 

his prose brief the liberal construction to which it is entitled, 

see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 519-20, we address that claim as 

well. We agree with the district court that Hernandez's claim is 

controlled by Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) which 

holds that, as a matter of law, a prisoner has no justifiable 

expectation that he will be incarcerated in any particular 

facility. Id. at 245. 

We affirm the dismissal without prejudice of Hernandez's 

first claim, albeit for different reasons than those advanced by 

the district court. Hernandez's second claim was correctly 

dismissed by the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1149 Document: 010110064911 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 5