Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03003/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03003-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

DAVID ZINK, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir-•h 

/\ R 1 7 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3003 

(D.C. No. 90-3552-R) 

(D. Kans.) 

MICHAEL QUINLAN, 

Director of BOP, and 

G.L. HENMAN, Warden, 

JOHN USP MAIL ROOM, 

and 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral a~gument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellant, a federal prisoner in Leavenworth, Kansas, brought 

this civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellant claims 

that his constitutional rights were violated, and continue to be 

violated, by the prison's refusal to open "legal mail" in his 

* 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: 91-3003 Document: 010110034200 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 1 
' . .. 

presence. Thus, appellant brought a motion seeking a temporary 

restraining order. The district court dismissed the complaint 

without prejudice on the grounds that appellant had not exhausted 

his prison administrative remedies. The district court cited two 

cases that are controlling here. See McCarthy v. Maddiqan, 914 

F.2d 1411 (10th Cir. 1990); Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664 (10th Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980). Those cases 

demonstrated that in this court "'a broad exhaustion requirement 

is particularly appropriate in cases involving federal prisoner 

complaints against prison officials relating to 

their .•. treatment during confinement." McCarthy, 914 F.2d at 

1412, quoting, Hessbrook v. Lennon, 777 F.2d 999, 1007 (1985). 

We agree with the district court that in most cases "[t]he 

administrative remedy process is necessary for the proper and 

effective handling of prisoner complaints and serves as a form of 

discovery in an attempt to resolve the grievance." Dist. Ct. Order 

at 1. Additionally, as in McCarthy, 914 F.2d at 1412 (quotations 

omitted), appellant in this case "does not challenge on appeal the 

district court's finding that he failed to demonstrate his use of 

the [available] administrative remedy process;" rather, he states 

that he should not have "to endure the violations for [the] 70 

plus days it takes to exhaust." See Appellant's Motion for Leave 

to Proceed on Appeal Without Prepayment of Costs or Fees at 3. We 

disagree with this assertion because of the clear law of this 

court and because in this case exhaustion would serve to either 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3003 Document: 010110034200 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 2 
correct the alleged problem or adduce facts necessary to its 

resolution in court. 

Therefore, we GRANT the motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and AFFIRM the district court's order dismissing the 

action without prejudice. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court, 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3003 Document: 010110034200 Date Filed: 04/17/1991 Page: 3