Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01176/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01176-0/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 

OSCAR TUCKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

J:41 I ··-' ~ D 

United St:ltr.; S t1 Jf \ ~1 - A1•pei,ls 

Tn")".-·Hi (l' i ":?-t:~}t 

JAN 2 2 1991 

OBER1' L. HOECKFI. Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1176 

OFFICER ALLPORT and 

WARDEN ANTHONY BELASKI, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

(D.C. No. 90-C-0098) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. 

Oscar Tucker is an inmate at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Littleton, Colorado. On December 6, 1989, Tucker 

was transferred into the Administrative Segregation Unit. The 

cell in which he was placed had a broken window. Tucker 

immediately requested a warmer cell, but was told none was 

available. He remained in the cell from December 6 until December 

12. During this period, Tucker repeatedly requested the window be 

* 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 

t he case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1176 Document: 010110080361 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 1 
repaired or he be moved to a different cell. Tucker was given an 

additional blanket and extra towels to cover the window. The 

staff also increased the heat in the unit to compensate for any 

heat loss due to the broken window. Tucker claims these measures 

were not helpful in combating the extreme cold in his cell. 

Tucker was moved to a different cell within the unit on December 

13. This cell, although somewhat warmer, also had a broken 

window. He was removed from this cell on December 18. 

Tucker filed this Bivens action in the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado. He asserted he was entitled 

to an order to correct conditions, $10,000 in damages for mental 

anguish and physical suffering, and $10,000 in punitive damages 

for outrageous conduct and gross negligence. Tucker did not 

pursue the Adminstrative Remedy Procedure for Inmates found at 

28 C.F.R. § 542.10-542.16 prior to filing this action. 

Relying on this court's decision in Brice Y.!.. Day, 604 F.2d 

664 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980), the 

district court dismissed Tucker's complaint without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held Tucker 

was obligated to pursue the Administrative Remedy Procedure for 

Inmates prior to filing his suit in federal court. Tucker now 

appeals this decision. We affirm. 

Tucker contends he was not required to exhaust administrative 

remedies before filing this action because (1) his efforts to 

utilize these remedies were thwarted by prison officials' failure 

to respond to his informal requests for relief; (2) the procedures 

found in 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.16 provide no remedy for an 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1176 Document: 010110080361 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 2 
inmate complaining about conditions to which he is no longer 

subject; and 3) these procedures cannot be used by an inmate to 

request money damages. 

Tucker's first contention is without merit. Although he was 

not satisfied with the results of his informal requests for 

relief, Tucker presents no evidence indicating it would have been 

futile to file a more formal complaint. In fact, the prison 

officials demonstrated some willingness to respond by providing 

Tucker with extra blankets and towels, moving him to a different 

cell, and increasing the heat in the administrative detention 

unit. 

Neither would Tucker's administrative remedies necessarily be 

barred for his failure to file a timely complaint. The 

Administrative Remedy Procedure for Inmates does state that a 

formal complaint should be made within fifteen calendar days of 

the date on which the basis of the complaint occurred. This 

provision, however, also states that an extension will be granted 

if there is a valid reason for delay. 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(b). 

Tucker is therefore not foreclosed from now pursuing these 

procedures. 

Tucker's failure to exhaust these administrative remedies 

prior to filing this suit is also not excused because they do not 

provide the particular remedy he is seeking. This same argument 

was made by the plaintiffs in Brice. 604 F.2d at 665. ("They 

(appellants] do contend, however, that the doctrine [of exhaustion 

of remedies] has no application where damages are sought .... 

They contend that the Bureau of Prisons' review procedure does not 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1176 Document: 010110080361 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 3 
. , . .. . 

provide for an award of monetary damages.") The court in Brice 

specifically rejected this argument. It held these procedures 

should be utilized even when the prisoner is seeking relief for 

which they do not provide. The court noted these administrative 

procedures allow for investigation and factfinding that later will 

assist the trial court when it considers the prisoner's complaint. 

The court concluded the requirement that prisoners pursue these 

procedures before filing an action in federal court actually 

assist a prisoner in later stating his case to the district court. 

We therefore AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Oscar 

Tucker's complaint without prejudice. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1176 Document: 010110080361 Date Filed: 01/22/1991 Page: 4