Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03027/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03027-0/pdf.json

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

---

PERRY 

v. 

EDDIE 

E. H. 

DU. 

UNITED STATED COURT OF APPEAL 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WAYNE CAUDLE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant. ) 

) 

) No. 

. FILED United Stat~ Co .. ~ Urtof A 

Tenth Circuit P.Peals 

JUN 21 7990 

ROBERT L. HOECI(E 

Clerk R 

90-3027 

) ( D. C. No. 89-3482-R) 

GEOUGE and ) (District of Kansas) 

ANDERSON, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Perry D. Caudle appeals ~ se the dismissal without 

prejudice of his civil rights complaint alleging violations of his 

constitutional rights under the Fifth and Eighth amendments by the 

filing of improper disciplinary reports by federal prison 

officials and threats against his person by a prison official. He 

*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: 90-3027 Document: 010110036897 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 1 
.11 ,_ 

also seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis, which we 

grant. 

The court below correctly held that, in a Bivens action, the 

plaintiff must exhaust available administrative remedies prior to 

filing his suit in federal court. See Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 

665 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 44 U.S. 1086 (1980}. On 

appeal, Caudle insists that he did exhaust his administrative 

remedies, as evidenced by submission of receipts of various levels 

of appeals within the prison system. Those receipts, however, 

provide evidence only that appeals were filed but do not establish 

whether or not the appeals had been exhausted at the time the 

complaint was filed. We remand to the district court for a 

finding as to whether the administrative remedies, in fact, had 

been completed when the complaint was filed. If so, the district 

court should address the merits of Caudle's complaint. If not, we 

invite the district court to consider whether a continuance should 

be granted pending the results of the administrative review 

procedures. Cf. Hessbrook v. Lennon, 777 F.2d 999, 1007 (5th Cir. 

1985}. 

REMANDED. The mandate shall issue f orthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3027 Document: 010110036897 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 2