Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03112/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03112-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

I 

JOHN J. MCCARTHY, 

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

SEP 2 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-3112 

) 

MR. MADDIGAN, DR. PERRY; ) 

DR. WALTER, DR. DELMURO, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D. C. No. 90-3101) 

John J. McCarthy, prose. 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

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. 

3 4 ( 1 ) ; 10th Cir . R. 3 4 . 1. 9 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Appellant John J. McCarthy appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his civil rights claim filed pursuant to 28 u.s.c. 

Appellate Case: 90-3112 Document: 01019844556 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 1 
§ 1331 and the court's denial of his motion for relief from 

judgment made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Appellant 

alleges that the deliberate indifference to his serious medical 

needs of officials of the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, 

Kansas, violates his Eighth Amendment rights, and he seeks 

damages. The district court dismissed the claim without prejudice 

because Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the 

administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons, 

as required by Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980). District Court Order 

of April 6, 1990. For the reasons cited in its first order, and 

because appellant failed to present any new evidence, the district 

court also denied appellant's motion for relief from judgment. 

District Court Order of April 19, 1990. 

Appellant argues that the law in this circuit is unsettled as 

to whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in a 

Bivens-type action, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971), where a federal prisoner seeks only money damages to 

redress an alleged constitutional violation. He urges us to 

follow certain cases from the Third and Sixth Circuits rejecting 

such a requirement. 

The appellants in Brice v. Day argued, as does Mr. McCarthy, 

that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement does 

not -apply where damages are sought 

constitutional right. 604 F.2d at 665. 

-2-

for a violation of 

One of the appellants 

a 

in 

Appellate Case: 90-3112 Document: 01019844556 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 2 
Brice sought monetary damages and "what other relief the court 

deems fair." Id. This court held that "preliminary fact-finding 

would be necessary to determine whether there is a possible Bivens 

cause of action .... Thus, if we assume that the petitions before 

us could indicate a Bivens cause of action as the appellants 

argue, we must ... require an initial administrative inquiry." 

Id. at 666. Brice made clear that "this administrative 

consideration is not to resolve constitutional issues nor to 

consider damages," id. at 667, but simply to develop a factual 

record to assist the district court in its review. 

Appellant relies principally on Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 

122 (3d Cir. 1984), and Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F.2d 27 (6th Cir. 

1982), both of which hold that a federal prisoner seeking only 

money damages in a Bivens-type action need not first exhaust 

administrative remedies. Muhammad and Goar, however, do not 

state the law in this circuit, Moreover, these cases 

mischaracterize this circuit's holding in Brice. According to the 

Third Circuit, Brice held that a "federal prisoner seeking damages 

and other relief for overcrowded conditions must exhaust 

administrative remedies." 739 F.2d at 125 n.l; cf. 688 F.2d at 

29. The rule of Brice, however, is not keyed to the type of 

relief sought, but to the need for preliminary fact-finding. 

Brice does not except cases involving claims for monetary damages 

only. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3112 Document: 01019844556 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 3 
We also disagree with the Third Circuit's assumption that the 

courts "may not take it upon ourselves to impose a judiciallycreated exhaustion requirement directed at federal prisoners." 

739 at 125. Given that Bivens actions are "a creation of the 

judiciary," id. at 124; accord Brice, 604 F.2d at 665, it follows 

that the courts may, and indeed must, establish reasonable 

requirements for bringing such actions. Furthermore, as the Sixth 

Circuit recognized in Goar, "[a]lthough 

apparatus could not award money damages 

the 

• • • I 

administrative 

administrative 

consideration of the possibility of corrective action and a record 

would have aided a court in measuring liability and determining 

the extent of the damages." 

original). 

688 F.2d at 29 (emphasis in 

We further note that in Hessbrook v. Lennon, 777 F.2d 999, 

1007 n.14 (1985), the Fifth Circuit correctly construed our 

holding in Brice and declined to adopt the Third and Sixth 

Circuits' view on this issue. We agree with the Hessbrook panel 

that "a broad exhaustion requirement is particularly appropriate 

in cases involving federal prisoner complaints against prison 

officials relating to their ... treatment during confinement." 

777 F.2d at 1007. 

We find no merit in the other cases cited by appellant, 

Appellant's Opening Brief at 3, nor do they alter our conclusion 

that preliminary fact-finding is necessary in this case, as it was 

in Brice, to determine whether appellant has a possible Bivens 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3112 Document: 01019844556 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 4 
cause of action. See 604 F.2d at 666; cf. Hatcher v. Office of 

=C=o=m=p~t=r~o~l=l~e=r=---~o~f=---_C~u=r=r=e=n=cy~, 631 F,2d 985, 989 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 

(citing Brice). Furthermore, although appellant alleged in his 

complaint that he had invoked the prison grievance procedure prior 

to filing this suit, he does not challenge on appeal the district 

court's finding that he "failed to demonstrate his use of the 

(available] administrative remedy process," 

1990, at 1. 

Order of April 6, 

Accordingly, we grant permission to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and the order of the district court is AFFIRMED, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3112 Document: 01019844556 Date Filed: 09/20/1990 Page: 5