Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06014/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06014-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cir'.:'nit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 1 0 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JESSE JAMES R. JONES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; 

T.C. MARTIN, Warden, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-6014 

(D. C. No. CIV-87-1323-W) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, 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 

Appellant, a federal prisoner, commenced an action pro se 

under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 alleging deprivation of certain 

constitutionally protected rights. The trial court granted 

* 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: 89-6014 Document: 01019974693 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 1 
/ 

defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the action to be frivolous 

and malicious. 

The district court found: (1) Appellant failed to serve 

several of the defendants; (2) as to several defendants, Appellant 

failed to allege personal participation and the doctrine of 

respondeat superior is not extended to a Bivens type action 

against federal officials (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971)); (3) the suit is barred by either sovereign 

immunity, if classified as a Bivens action, or by failure to 

comply with statutory requirements if classified as a tort action; 

and (4) Appellant failed to state a claim. 

Appellant was granted leave to file in forma pauperis, and 

filed motions: for appointment of counsel and for a temporary 

restraining order; a supplemental complaint; a renewed motion for 

appointment of counsel; a request for production of documents; 

motions for protective orders; motions for physical and mental 

examinations; and numerous other docume nts. The trial court's 

patient disposition of such matters is not questioned on appeal. 

In his pro se brief, Appellant states a number of 

contentions. He complains that the district court applied the 

wrong law relating to "respondeat superior," "discovery," and the 

"right to trial," although he fails to point out the correct law 

and contents himself with the making of these bare contentions. 

He asserts the district court incorrectly decided the following 

facts: ( 1) "Process & Summons"; and ( 2) "the issues of being 

transferred to the medical center and subjected to the loss of 

sanity" as a form of punishment. He asserts the district court 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 89-6014 Document: 01019974693 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 2 
failed to consider his complaints of "mental abuse" and of "being 

transferred without notice or substantial reasons." Appellant 

cites no authority and fails to address the district court's well 

written eight-page memorandum opinion. We have reviewed the 

record and find no merit to Appellant's contentions. 

The decision of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED for substantially the 

same reasons as stated in its memorandum opinion dated December 

27, 1988. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6014 Document: 01019974693 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 3