Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01138/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01138-0/pdf.json

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

---

, . .. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth r,r,_,,;, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

OCT 2 5 1990 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

----------~ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

PETER FROST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HIDEYA TSUDO, DAVID HERRERA, 

and SHARON SEANEZ, Employees of 

the U.S.A., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1138 

(D.C.No. 90-A-0645) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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. 

Peter Frost, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") in Littleton, Colorado, appeals from the dismissal of 

his prose action alleging medical malpractice and "medical 

neglect" of his condition of stress-related eczema. 

* 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: 90-1138 Document: 010110064854 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Frost brought his action initially in the Small Claims 

Court of Jefferson County, Colorado against the FCI physician, Dr. 

Hideya Tsudo, as well as two physician's assistants, Sharon Seanez 

and David Herrera. Defendants removed the action to the federal 

district court and substituted as defendant the United States in 

place of the individual defendants, on the theory that the action 

was properly subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2671-2680. The district court then dismissed the action for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) 

because Mr. Frost had failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). For Mr. Frost's 

guidance, the district court order helpfully explained the administrative remedies which must be exhausted and attached a copy of 

the applicable procedural requirements. 

We affirm the dismissal of Mr. Frost's claim. While his 

appellate brief mentions "refusal of medical treatment" and cites 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), his complaint in small claims court only 

alleged medical malpractice and negligence resulting in personal 

injury, which would clearly be subject to the Federal Tort Claims 

Act. The district court correctly held that Mr. Frost's failure 

to exhaust his administrative remedies required dismissal of his 

complaint. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1138 Document: 010110064854 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2