Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03121/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03121-0/pdf.json

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

---

" 

.. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

IMAM 'SHAHID MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No. 90-3121 

1 · V l . 199 

:-tOBER1" L, HOECKEll 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D. C. No. 88-3004-R 

( D. Kan. ) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Muhammad appeals the district court's decision that 

granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
monetary damages and defendant's motion for summary judgment on 

the remaining claims. 

Mr. Muhammad filed his prose complaint against the United 

States Bureau of Prisons. His pleadings are voluminous yet can be 

summarized by stating that he claims his constitutional rights 

were violated by defendant when he was transferred from the United 

States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at Springfield, 

Missouri, to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, 

Kansas. Specifically, Mr. Muhammad claims that the Eighth 

unusual punishment was 

he had been adequately 

Amendment prohibition against cruel and 

violated as he was transferred before 

rehabilitated from the effects of a stroke. 

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss concerning Mr. Muhammad's 

claims for monetary damages contending the court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider the claim. This contention was based 

upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity and Mr. Muhammad's failure 

to fulfill the jurisdictional prerequisites, including the denial 

of a timely filed administrative tort claim. Defendant also filed 

a motion for summary judgment with supporting material concerning 

Mr. Muhammad's claim for equitable relief. The district court 

granted both of defendant's motions. 

Mr. Muhammad appeals these decisions prose. On appeal, he 

makes many conclusory assertions, such as, "[d]efendant's [sic] 

are covering up for the food poison or some type of chemical that 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
was placed in plaintiff cream of corn II He also asserts that 

if he has AIDS, defendant gave it to him and should be charged 

with conspiracy to commit murder. 

We grant Mr. Muhammad leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

After reviewing the voluminous record on appeal de novo, 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 

1990), we find ourselves in substantial agreement with the 

decision of the district court. 

Since filing his brief, Mr. Muhammad has filed a motion for 

writ of mandamus on October 9, 1990. In this "motion" he is 

complaining of his threatened transfer to a New Jersey prison. 

The record on appeal fails to show that this claim was presented 

to the district court and fails to show what action, if 

taken by the district court. For this reason, 

any, was 

we will not 

consider this issue. Mr. Muhammad, in his latest filing, has also 

requested that we enter a default judgment in his favor as 

appellee has failed to file a response. In cases such as this, an 

appellee is not required to file a response unless directed to do 

so by this court. We have not so directed, and we therefore 

refuse to grant the motion for default. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court for 

substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court 

order of March 14, 1990, a copy of which is attached hereto. Mr. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
Muhammad also appeals the district court's denial of various postjudgment motions. 

court. 

We again AFFIRM these actions of the district 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4 
.. . • 

' . ' • 

10 72A 

Arv. 8/82) 

Fi LED 

U.S. DiSTRICT COURT 

DISTR ICT OF ~AN SAS 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS HAR 14 II 00 AH '9• 

IMAM SHAHID MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 88-3004-R 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Defendant. _____________ , _________ ) 

0 R D E R 

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to 

dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Having reviewed the 

pleadings and materials filed in this matter, the court makes the 

following findings and order. 

Plaintiff Imam Shahid Muhammad claims that his constitutional 

rights were violated by the defendant when he was transferred from 

the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners ("USMCFP"), 

Springfield, Missouri, to the United States Penitentiary ("USPL"), 

Leavenworth, Kansas, in the spring of 1987. Specifically, plaintiff 

appears to claim that the defendant violated the Eight A-~endment 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment by transferring 

plaintiff" away from USMCFP before he had been adequately 

rehabilitated from the effects of a stroke. 

transfer back to USMCFP and damages. 

Factual Background 

Plaintiff seeks a 

After reviewing the documents filed by both parties, the 

court finds that the following facts are not genuinely in dispute. 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 5 
0 72A 

Irv. 8/82) 

Plaintiff ' suffered a stroke (right cerebellar infarct) on March 3, 

1986, which left him with some right-side disability. Plaintiff was 

subsequently treated at USMCFP from March 31, 1986, until March 4, 

1987. At USMCFP, plaintiff received active exercises, resistive 

exercises and cardiovascular conditioning. Medical records indicate 

that at the time of his initial discharge from USMCFP, he had fine 

motor point functioning impairment of the right upper extremity. 

After his transfer from USMCFP to USPL, plaintiff continued 

to complain of mid-back pain and occasional numbness of the right 

side of his head, hand and upper leg. Physical examinations of 

plaintiff by USPL medical staff members confirmed plaintiff's 

complaints. Plaintiff was transferred back to USMCFP on April 29, 

1988, for evaluation and treatment of his symptoms. 

While at USMCFP, plaintiff's treatment included a physical 

therapy regime directed at relieving plaintiff's complaints of 

weakness and lack of coordination on his right side. On June 30, 

1988, plaintiff was discharged from physical therapy at USMCFP 

because medical staff determined that he had received the maximum 

benefit from physical therapy. On July 18, 1988, plaintiff was 

discharged from USMCFP and transferred back to USPL. 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant asserts that plaintiff's claims for monetary 

damages should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction 

to consider plaintiff's claims for damages against the Bureau of 

Prisons. The cotrr-t_agrees. Sovereign immunity bars lawsuits 

against agencies of the United States unless Congress has 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 6 
,o 72/1\ 

Arv. 8/821 

specifically waived that immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 455 

U.S. 535 (1980); United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). 

Neither§ 1331 nor the constitution acts as such a waiver. Garcia 

v. United States, 666 F.2d 960, 966 (5th Cir. 1982). Moreover, 

plaintiff has failed to file an administrative tort claim, which 

would have allowed him to bring his claims pursuant to the Federal 

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671-80. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims 

for monetary damages are hereby dismissed. 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Standard for Grant of Summary Judgment 

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment only when the 

evidence indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Maughan v. SW Servicing, Inc., 758 F.2d 1381, 

1387 (10th Cir. 1985). The requirement of a "genuine" issue of fact 

means that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return 

a verdict for the nonrnoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party has the burden of 

showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. This 

burden "may be discharged by 'showing' that is, pointing out to 

the district court -- that there is an absence of evidence to 

support the nonrnoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 

U.S. 317, 325 (1986). "[A] party opposing a properly supported 

motion for summary judgment may not rest on mere allegations or 

denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing 

that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 474 U.S. at 

256. Thus, the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 7 
10 72A 

Ar,, 8/82) 

between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported 

motion for summary judgment. Id. The court must consider factual 

inferences tending to show triable issues in the light most 

favorable to the existence of those issues. United States v. 

O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986). The court must also 

consider the record in the light most favorable to the party 

opposing the motion. Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 1387, 1396 (10th Cir. 

1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214 (1985). 

Discussion 

The court finds that the defendant is entitled to a judgment 

as a matter of law. In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), the 

Supreme Court concluded that deliberate indifference to the serious 

medical needs of a prisoner constitutes a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105. However, the court has defined 

"deliberate indifference" to include only "obduracy and wantonness" 

and not "inadvertence or error in good faith". Whitlev v. Albers, 

475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). In this case, the evidence presented by 

plaintiff demonstrates, at most, inadvertence or good faith error 

on the part of the defendant's employees in discharging plaintiff 

from USMCFP in the spring of 1987. Accordingly, the court finds 

that plaintiff has failed to set forth facts sufficient to establish 

a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights and warrant the 

granting of equitable relief. 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANT 

As a final matter, the court finds that plaintiff's motion 

4 

9 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 8 
0 72A 

lh. 8/8'2) 

to add Dr. Stanley E. Nelson as a defendant must be·· denied. 

Pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1391(b), venue for a§ 1331 claim against 

Dr. Nelson would be proper only in the district where Dr. Nelson 

resides or where the claim arose. A review of plaintiff's motion 

demonstrates that Dr. Nelson is a resident of Missouri and that the 

cause of action arose in Missouri. Because venue would not be 

proper in this district, plaintiff's motion is appropriately denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's motion to 

dismiss is hereby granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary 

judgment is hereby granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to add 

defendant is hereby denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed 

and all relief denied. The clerk of the court is directed to 

transmit copies of this order to plaintiff and to counsel for 

defendant. 

DATED: . ) ~ tt. This~ day of March, 1990, at Topeka, Kansas. 

' ~--- ,,----.,... RICE~RD D. ROG~R~ 

,v-~./ 

RICHARD D. ROGERS . J 

United States District Judge 

5 

10 

Appellate Case: 90-3121 Document: 010110047989 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 9