Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03082/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03082-0/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 

ANDREW WALKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 15 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-3082 

RICHARD THORNBURGH, 

LIEUTENANT GALLEGOS, 

) (D. Kan. No. 90-3080-R) 

) 

) 

) 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an Order of the district court dated 

March 7, 1990 dismissing sua sponte appellant's complaint because 

the district court found that it alleged identical circumstances 

to those matters alleged in another complaint presently pending in 

the same district court in Walker v. U.S., et al., No. 89-3234 

* 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: 90-3082 Document: 010110059614 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 1 
I 

. 

(D. Kan). On August 14, 1990, we ordered a response from the 

defendants/appellees. 

In their response, appellees acknowledge that the claims in 

the two complaints are slightly different. However, appellees 

argue that the dismissal of this complaint can be supported 

because the appellant has failed to exhaust administrative 

remedies. At page 5 of plaintiff's complaint he acknowledges that 

he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. 

It is the rule in this circuit that exhaustion of 

administrative remedies is a prerequisite for bringing a Bivens 

suit for damages. McCarthy v. Maddigan, __ F.2d __ (10th Cir. 

1990. We can affirm a decision of the district court on any 

basis, including a basis not relied upon by the district court, if 

it is supported by the record and the law. Reynolds v. United 

States, 643 F.2d 707, 710 (10th Cir. 1981). 

Given the undisputed fact that appellant has not exhausted 

his administrative remedies, we see no reason to remand this case 

to the district court. We AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court, 

David M. Ebel 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 90-3082 Document: 010110059614 Date Filed: 10/15/1990 Page: 2