Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01064/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01064-0/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 SEP 2 S 1992 

OB,;Rr' L • J 

CHARLES M. BYERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY BELASKI, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

- -~·c·!' __ ~----

No. 92-1064 

(D.C. No. 91-Z-1504) 

( D. Colo.) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, AND BRORBY 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Charles M. Byers, a federal prose plaintiff, appeals from an 

order of the district court dismissing his complaint without 

prejudice. Byers asserted eight causes of action seeking only 

monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 

* 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: 92-1064 Document: 010110392290 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 1
u.s.c. § 2671-81. Byers did not identify which of the actions 

were asserted under Bivens and which were asserted under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act, but the district court construed the 

pleadings liberally and considered all of the claims as though 

brought under both Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act. 

The case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended 

that the actions under Bivens be dismissed because Byers had 

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The district court 

adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations regarding the 

claims under Bivens, and dismissed the actions under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act without prejudice because Byers failed to assert 

facts which give rise to an actionable tort as defined by Colorado 

law. The district court also denied Byers's request for 

appointment of counsel. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and vacate and remand the district court's order 

dismissing Byers's actions under Bivens and denying the 

appointment of counsel, and affirm the order dismissing the claims 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We do not consider the four 

counts (counts 9-12) that Byers raises for the first time on 

appeal. See Workman v. Jordan, 958 F . 2d 332, 337 (10th Cir. 

1992). 

In McCarthy v. Maddigan, __ u.s. __ , 112 s.ct. 1081 (1992), 

decided after the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court 

held that prisoners seeking only monetary damages may f i le Bivens 

actions without first exhausting available administrative 

remedies. Byers sought only monetary relief, and thus is not 

required to exhaust the internal grievance procedures before 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1064 Document: 010110392290 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 2
initiating a suit in federal court. Therefore, we reinstate 

Byers's action for damages. 

The district court dismissed Byers's actions under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act for failure to "assert facts which give 

rise to an actionable tort as defined by Colorado law." "[A] sua 

sponte dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is not reversible error when 

it is 'patently obvious' that the plaintiff could not prevail on 

the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his 

complaint would be futile." McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 

365 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole 

Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). We have construed 

the pleadings liberally, as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520-21 (1972), and reviewed the facts in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff-appellant. We agree with the district 

court that Byers has not alleged facts sufficient to establish 

that the defendants committed a tort under Colorado law as 

required by the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Gammill v. United 

States, 727 F.2d 950, 953 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Accordingly, we VACATE the district court's order dismissing 

Byers's actions under Bivens and REMAND for further proceedings 

according to McCarthy and for reconsideration of Byers's request 

for the appointment of counsel. We AFFIRM the district court's 

dismissal under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The mandate shall i ssue 

forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1064 Document: 010110392290 Date Filed: 09/29/1992 Page: 3