Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03189/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03189-0/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 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Coore of Appals 

Tenth Circuit 

AY 25 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DAVID FRANK BAGGULEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT L. MATHEWS; CHARLES 

CARTER; KEITH W. SASEK; 

STEVEN W. THOMAS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3189 

(D. C. No. 89-3177-0) 

(D. Kan.) 

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. Bagguley appeals the dismissal of his civil rights 

complaint. 

* 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: 89-3189 Document: 01019970529 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Bagguley, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in 

Leavenworth, Kansas, filed his prose complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and other 

equitable relief. Mr. Bagguley alleges that defendants violated 

his constitutional rights by raising his custody level from 

minimum security to maximum security. 

The district court entered an order requiring Mr. Bagguley to 

file with the court documentation demonstrating that he had 

presented the issues raised in the complaint to Bureau of Prisons 

officials. Mr. Bagguley filed a response stating that it is not 

necessary for him to first pursue his administrative remedy. 

The district court, relying upon Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 

F.2d 122 (3d Cir. 1984), thereupon found that Mr. Bagguley failed 

to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the Bureau of 

Prisons and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 

Mr. Bagguley filed his notice of appeal and applied for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, which the district court denied, 

finding the appeal to be legally frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. 

In his prose appeal, Mr. Bagguley asserts: (1) Appellant 

has a protected interest in reclassification; (2) he has not been 

afforded the prerequisite of due process before he was 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3189 Document: 01019970529 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 2 
reclassified; (3) he has been deprived of a liberty interest by 

defendants; and (4) defendants' actions are not warranted. He 

also now asserts that he did exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Mr. Bagguley's complaint was filed in federal district court 

on May 15, 1989. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find 

therein a May 22, 1989 response from the Bureau of Prisons to a 

May 3, 1989 request for administrative remedy. The Bureau's 

response explains the reasons for changing Mr. Bagguley's custody 

classification. Subsequently, on July 10, 1989, Mr. Bagguley 

filed with the district court a document dated June 28, 1989, 

which purports to be a response by the Bureau to his 

administrative remedy appeal of May 31, 1989. 

A prisoner seeking only money damages in a Bivens (Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971}} action is not required to exhaust his administrative 

remedies; however, Mr. Bagguley is also seeking equitable 

remedies. He is clearly required to exhaust his administrative 

remedies, see Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-67 (10th Cir. 1979), 

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980), and the record on appeal 

affirmatively shows that Mr. Bagguley failed in this regard prior 

to the filing of his complaint. The action of the district court 

dismissing Mr. Bagguley's complaint was correct. The after-thefact attempt by Mr. Bagguley to exhaust his administrative 

remedies is not sufficient. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3189 Document: 01019970529 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 3 
.. 

The dismissal by the district court was without prejudice. 

If Mr. Bagguley has in fact now exhausted his administrative 

remedies, there exists no impediment to his filing a proper 

complaint. 

We therefore find and hold that Mr. Bagguley's appeal is 

frivolous. It is hereby dismissed pursuant to 

§ 1915(d). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

28 u.s.c. 

Appellate Case: 89-3189 Document: 01019970529 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 4