Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01101/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01101-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

. FILED 

Umted Stat.es Court of Appeal" 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Tcnt'l Circuit ~ 

OCT 1 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

JOSEPH C. SUN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; MICHELLE ) 

ALLPORT; LT. TYNDALL; J. GRISWOLD; ED ) 

HUGHES; LT. KOLATSON; LT. BAILEY; ) 

ANTHONY BELASKI; RUY MARTINEZ; JOSEPH ) 

FINKLEMAN; RICK VEACH; JOY CURRY; ) 

ANTHONY BOYD; J. LIGHTY; P.L. FERLAZZO; ) 

L.E. DEBOIS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 91-1101 

(D.C. No. 90-C-1878) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, EBEL, Circuit Judge, and SAFFELS,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

* 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: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Prose Plaintiff Joseph c. Sun appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his complaint against various prison officials and 

inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, 

Colorado. His original Complaint was referred to a magistrate 

judge, who recommended dismissal because he found Sun had failed 

to exhaust his federal administrative remedies and, even assuming 

proper exhaustion, because Sun's Complaint failed to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted. 

Sun filed an Amended Complaint, and also filed objections to 

the magistrate judge's recommendation. The district court 

dismissed Sun's Amended Complaint, adopting the magistrate judge's 

recommendation. The district court also noted that Sun's 

complaint "must be dismissed for failure to comply with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8. 11 We construe Sun's pro se complaint liberally, as 

required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). We affirm in 

part, reverse in part, and remand. 

First, we address the district court's dismissal for lack of 

exhaustion. We review this issue de novo. See Fox v. Kelso, 911 

F.2d 563, 568 (11th Cir. 1990)(habeas corpus suit; exhaustion of 

state court remedies). Federal prisoners must exhaust their 

administrative remedies before bringing their claims to federal 

court. Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-668 (10th Cir. 1979), 

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980), see Anderson v. Miller, 772 

F.2d 375, 376-77 (7th Cir. 1985)(habeas context), cert. denied, 

475 U.S. 1021 (1986). However, this exhaustion requirement is not 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 2 
jurisdictional, and the court may waive it. See Harris v. 

Champion, 938 F.2d 1062, 1068-69 (10th Cir. 199l)(exhaustion of 

state court remedies); Anderson, 772 F.2d at 377. 

Sun filed two Declarations with the district court, attaching 

copies of various Requests for Administrative Remedy and decisions 

on appeal to the regional director. His first Declaration also 

alleges that some of his requests were returned "using pretense to 

obstruct the administrative process." He contends that his 

requests were returned to him outside of the required fifteen-day 

filing period in "a calculated scheme to deny my constitutional 

right to due process by the institution." Additionally, in his 

objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation, he reiterates 

these allegations and claims that he has met the burden of 

exhaustion. These claims are repeated in his Amended Complaint. 

Nonetheless, the district court failed to address these 

contentions. We believe that Sun's allegations make a colorable 

claim that the prison administrative staff may be responsible to 

some extent for Sun's failure to meet the strict exhaustion 

requirements called for in Brice and discussed in the magistrate 

judge's recommendation. 

The extent of use of the administrative remedies is to 

be within our prior decisions on this subject. This is 

to include our decisions which indicate when such 

procedure cannot be required. It is apparent that there 

must be a liberal application of the requirement if 

attempts to use the procedure should be thwarted by 

prison officials. 

Brice, 604 F.2d at 667. 

We remand this issue to the district court for further 

consideration in accordance with this order and judgment. On 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 3 
remand, the district court should make findings regarding Sun's 

efforts to exhaust his claims at the administrative level. The 

district court should take into account Sun's allegations of 

purposeful obstruction of his attempts to file and appeal his 

complaints, his allegations of retaliation, and his current 

limited ability to obtain copies of administrative dispositions of 

his claims. 1 Following its findings on this matter, in 

determining whether Sun has met his burden to exhaust or whether 

exhaustion should be waived in this case, the district court 

should articulate its reasoning. In making this determination, 

the district court should consider the applicable law in this 

area. See Anderson, 772 F.2d at 378 (discussing the use of 

deliberate bypass and cause-and-prejudice analyses in examining 

exhaustion waiver issues). 

Because the magistrate judge's recommendation, adopted by the 

district court, relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as an 

alternative basis for its dismissal, we also review that ruling 

here. Our review of the dismissal of Sun's complaint for failure 

to state a claim is de novo. Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 997 

(10th Cir. 1991)(citing Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 

978 (10th Cir. 1986)). We can affirm the district court's 

dismissal of Sun's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) only if, 

accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and 

construing them in a light most favorable to Sun, we determine 

1 Sun was transferred out 

institution on July 26, 1990. 

of 

4 

the Englewood correctional 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 4 
that Sun can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief. Id. 

It is clear that the magistrate judge misinterpreted Sun's 

original Complaint. In his recommendation, the magistrate judge 

characterized the complaint as alleging a conspiracy for the 

violation of due process rights "apparently [] founded upon 

subsection (3) of 42 u.s.c. S 1985." We do not believe Sun's 

complaint should be interpreted so limitedly. First, while Sun 

did identify 42 u.s.c. §§ 1985, 1986 and 1988 as part of the 

jurisdictional basis for his suit, he also identified 28 u.s.c. 

SS 1331 and 1343. 2 Regardless of the jurisdictional bases listed 

by Sun, however, his pleadings should be held to a lesser standard 

than those drafted by attorneys. Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 

1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

[T]his rule means that if the court can reasonably read 

the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the 

plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the 

plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his 

confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and 

sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with 

pleading requirements. 

Id. (footnote omitted); see Walden v. Bartlett, 840 F.2d 771, 775 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

We believe that Sun's factual recitations state various 

Bivens claims against the defendants, 3 both individually and in 

concert. In his original and amended complaints, Sun clearly and 

2 Additionally, Sun's Amended Complaint adds 

and 42 u.s.c. S 1983 as jurisdictional bases. 

28 u.s.c S 2241 

3 In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 

the Supreme Court found an implied right of action against federal 

officials for deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 5 
# \ 

organizedly set out factual allegations which, if true, state 

claims of retaliation against the exercise of his constitutional 

rights. See Williams, 926 F.2d at 998 (prisoner's complaint 

alleging discrimination and retaliation for filing prison 

grievances sufficient to state Bivens claims for deprivation of 

fifth amendment equal protection rights and first amendment 

rights); Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 561-62 (10th Cir. 

1990)(same, transfer to another prison); Smith v. Maschner, 899 

F.2d 940, 947 (10th Cir. 1990)(retaliation against prisoners for 

exercise of constitutional rights constitutes separate cause of 

action under section 1983), and cases cited therein. 

The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Sun's complaint 

because his conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were vague 

and conclusory and because he did not identify himself as a member 

of a group as required by the case law interpreting that statute. 

See Pitts v. Board of Educ., 869 F.2d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We agree with the magistrate judge that Sun's reliance on § 1985 

is misplaced. To the extent Sun's complaint can be interpreted as 

alleging conspiracy under 42 u.s.c. § 1985, we affirm the 

magistrate's dismissal of that claim. However, the magistrate 

failed to consider that Sun may have stated a claim for conspiracy 

to deprive him of various constitutional rights outside of the 

§ 1985 context. We believe that Sun's factual allegations, when 

read together, could support a claim of conspiracy to retaliate 

against him for filing administrative grievances. 

On remand, the district court should carefully review Sun's 

Amended Complaint and determine the various claims his factual 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 6 
allegations may support. In our review of the Amended Complaint, 

we believe that Sun has properly and adequately stated various 

claims, including, for example, a Bivens claim of retaliation for 

filing administrative grievances, in violation of his first and 

fifth amendment rights. We do not list the claims that Sun may 

have stated; that determination is for the trial court in the 

first instance. The discussion in this order and judgment should 

not be read to limit in any way the interpretation of Sun's 

Amended Complaint. We do not suggest that the district court act 

as Sun's advocate in this matter, see Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110; 

nonetheless, 

[i]t is the practice in this Circuit for the trial 

courts to restructure petitions in prose proceedings to 

conform to what a preliminary view indicates the real 

issues to be. The recitations or the form in which the 

prose petition is initially cast is not determinative 

and cannot be. 

Brice, 604 F.2d at 667. On remand, the district court should 

consider the possibly preclusive effect of our ruling in Sun v. 

Tucker, No. 90-1087, slip op. (10th Cir. Oct. 18, 1991), insofar 

as it dismisses claims against Defendant J. Griswold. See 

N.A.A.C.P. v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1990). 

Finally, we reject the district court's conclusion that Sun's 

Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it fails to meet the 

strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Many of Sun's previous 

complaints were dismissed with notations by the district court 

that his pleadings were vague and conclusory and lacked factual 

support. See, e.g., Sun v. Balaski, 933 F.2d 1019 (10th Cir. 

199l)(unpublished disposition). Sun has attempted to correct that 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 7 
defect by alleging specific facts. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. 

Though numerous, his allegations are well-organized and not 

difficult to understand. We believe Sun, as a pro se plaintiff, 

has met Rule 8's requirements. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and 

REMANDED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-1101 Document: 010110091385 Date Filed: 10/18/1991 Page: 8