Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01330/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01330-0/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 CirQ,it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 24 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ORLANDO MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 

FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, and 

MR. REARDON, THE ADMINISTRATOR, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Nos. 89-1330 & 89-1345 

(D.C. Nos. 89-B-1617 

and 89-B-1618) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, 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. 

Orlando Martinez brought two prose complaints in forma 

pauperis against the United States, the Federal Detention Center 

at Englewood, Colorado, and Mr. Reardon, the Center's 

administrator. Martinez claims in one complaint that Detention 

*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: 89-1330 Document: 01019972063 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
Center staff improperly confiscated one hundred seven packages of 

cigarettes from his cell. He alleges in another complaint that 

employees at the Center failed to properly inventory his property 

when he was admitted there, and that as a result he has lost a 

gold ring allegedly valued at $900. Both complaints were filed on 

September 19, 1989. Two days later, on September 21, the 

magistrate recommended their dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

The district court entered orders of dismissal pursuant to section 

1915(d). Martinez filed a combined Motion to Appeal Order or 

Request for Reconsideration in both actions. The district court 

denied the motions to reconsider and then processed them as a 

notice of appeal. Although the Government was never served with 

the complaints, it entered an appearance in this court in both 

cases and subsequently filed motions in both cases requesting that 

we affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. When that 

motion was denied, the Government filed briefs in both appeals in 

which it renewed its request. 1 

Although Martinez filed his complaints on forms used by pro 

se prisoners to bring civil rights complaints against state 

officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), Martinez is asserting 

claims against the federal government and a federal official for 

1 In view of the Government's entry of appearance and its 

filing of a motion and brief in this matter, we conclude that the 

Government has waived the lack of proper service. See Smith v. 

McNamara, 395 F.2d 896, 898 (10th Cir. 1968), cert.cfenied, 394 

U.S. 934 (1969). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1330 Document: 01019972063 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
i 

deprivations of his property. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (1982), waives the United States' sovereign 

immunity from suit on such claims. Martinez has alleged the 

requisite exhaustion of administrative remedies. See id. at§ 

2675; Nero v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 892 F.2d 1457, 1463 

(10th Cir. 1989). Construing the complaints liberally, as we 

must, see Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988), 

we conclude that Martinez has stated claims under the FTCA and we 

agree with the Government that dismissal was therefore improper. 

To the extent that Martinez asserts Bivens claims against 

Reardon in his individual capacity, even when we view these claims 

under the less stringent standards applicable to prose pleadings, 

dismissal was proper. A denial of procedural due process does not 

occur "if a meaningful post deprivation remedy for the loss is 

available." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Although 

Hudson involved a claim against a state official alleging a 

violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 

its holding is equally applicable in a suit against a federal 

official alleging a Fifth Amendment due process violation. Here, 

as set out above, Martinez has a meaningful post deprivation 

remedy under the FTCA. 

Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of all claims except the 

FTCA claims against the United States. On those causes of action, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1330 Document: 01019972063 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3 
,. we reverse and remand for further proceedings. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1330 Document: 01019972063 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 4