Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03405/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 18 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

STEVEN G. TRAPP, 

Plaintiff-Appel !ant, 

V. 

UNITED ST A TES MARSHALS 

SERVICE; DAVID DILBERT!, 

Deputy Marshal; TROY SCHUSTER, 

Deputy Marshal; DARREN S. 

WEBER, Deputy Marshal; JOHN 

DOES (3), USMS Task Force Officers; 

CRAIG BEAM, Deputy Marshal, 

Defendants-Appel lees. 

No. 04-3405 

( District of Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-3335-JAR) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this court has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

'This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 1
this appeal. S'ec Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G ). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Steven G. Trapp filed a civil rights complaint against the United States 

Marshals Service ("USMS") and several individual agents of the USMS. In his 

complaint, Trapp alleged the defendants violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment 

rights in the course of effectuating his arrest. The district court dismissed 

Trapp's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that because the USMS was 

a federal governmental entity and the individual defendants were sued in their 

official capacities the suit was barred by sovereign immunity. Hatten v. White, 

275 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding that a suit against a federal 

employee in his official capacity is a suit against the United States and that such a 

suit is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity). The district court further 

concluded that Trapp could not proceed against the United States under the 

waiver of sovereign immunity set out in the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTC A") 

because Trapp had not exhausted his administrative remedies. McNeil 1'. United 

States, 508 U.S. I 06, 113 (1993) (holding that "the FTC A bars claimants from 

bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative 

remedies"). Finally, the district court refused to consider the questions of 

qualified immunity and quasi-judicial immunity, concluding that Trapp's 

complaint did not state a claim against the individual defendants in their 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 2
individual capacities. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. ~ 129 I, 1 this 

court affirms in part and reverses in part. The case is remanded to the district 

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Trapp's request to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted. 

This court reviews de nova both a district court's dismissal under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(6)( I) and its determinations on sovereign immunity. Ordinance 59 

Ass '11 v. United States Dep 't of Interior, 163 F .3d 1150, 1152 ( I 0th Cir. 1998). 

Applying that standard, this court affirms the dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction of Trapp's claims against the USMS and the individual defendants in 

their official capacity for those reasons set out by the district court. Furthermore, 

because it was able to resolve the jurisdictional issues relating to Trapp's claims 

against the USMS and the individual defendants in their official capacities based 

solely on the facts set out in Trapp's pleadings, the district court did not err in 

dismissing those claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. Holt v. United 

1

The defendants assert that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal 

because Trapp filed his notice of appeal one day late. In contrast to the 

defendants' assertions, however, Trapp's notice of appeal was timely filed. 

J udgmcnt was entered dismissing the case on August 11, 2004. Trapp had sixty 

days to file his notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l)(B). Sixty days after 

August I I, 2004, was Sunday, October 10, 2004. The next day, Monday, October 

I I, 2004, was Columbus Day. Accordingly, Trapp's notice of appeal was due on 

October 12, 2004. Fed. R. App. P. 36(a)(3), (4). Trapp's notice of appeal filed 

on October 12, 2004, was, therefore, timely. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 3
States, 4() F.3d I 000, l 003 ( l 0th Cir. 1995); United States v. Gaines, 964 F.2d 

972, 977 ( I 0th Cir. I 992 ). 

The district court erred, however, in concluding that Trapp's complaint did 

not state a claim, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 

Bureau o_f Narcotics, 403 U.S. 3 88 ( 1971), against the individual defendants in 

their individual capacities. We recognize that in his form complaint, Trapp 

checked the box indicating that he was suing each of the defendants in their 

official capacities. Nevertheless, the context of the complaint and accompanying 

documents indicate that Trapp was also raising claims against the individu::il 

defendants in their individual capacities. In his Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis, filed at the same time as Trapp filed his complaint, Trapp indicated that 

he was proceeding pursuant to either 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens. Furthermore, in 

his prayer for relief, Trapp sought punitive damages. See Slzaba::::::, v. Coughlin, 

852 F.2d 697, 700 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding that prayer for punitive damages shows 

suit is against officer in individual capacity); Grego,)' v. Clzelzi, 843 F .2d 111, 

119-20 (3d Cir. 1988) (same). None of the individual defendants suffered any 

prejudice from Trapp's failure to specifically indicate in his complaint that he was 

bringing claims against them in their official capacities. In their motion to 

dismiss, the individual defendants specifically raised the defenses of qualified 

immunity and quasi-judicial immunity. See Shockley v. Jones, 823 F.2d 1068, 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 4
1071 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that by raising a qualified immunity defense, the 

defendants demonstrated that they believed the suit was against them in their 

individual capacities). fn addition, in his response to the defendants' motion to 

dismiss, Trapp specifically argued that sovereign immunity did not dispose of his 

claims because he was proceeding against the individual defendants pursuant to 

Bi\·ens. Because Trapp's prose complaint2 set out claims against the individual 

defendants in their individual capacities, the district court erred in dismissing the 

entire suit for lack of subject matter on the ground of sovereign immunity. Id. at 

1071-72. 

The district court's dismissal of Trapp 's claims against the USMS and the 

defendants in their official capacities for lack of jurisdiction is hereby 

AFFIRMED. Its dismissal of the entire complaint for lack of jurisdiction is 

REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the district court for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

2

Because he was proceeding prose, the district court was obligated to read 

Trapp's complaint liberally. See Cummings v. Evans, 161 F.3d 610,613 (10th 

Cir. 1998). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-3405 Document: 010110642400 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Page: 6