Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03285/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~ I L ~ D 

United States Court of Appew TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

ANDREW WALKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

E. J . GULLEGOS, S.I. S., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

APR 3 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3285 

(D . C. No. 89-3234-R) 

(District of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETI', 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff's request to proceed in 

forma pauperis is 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: 92-3285 Document: 010110220230 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 1 
On December 16, 1988, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, was assaulted. Prison staff initiated a "lockdown11 of the facility, and an investigation into the 

incident was conducted. The evidence suggested the assault was 

committed by the Plaintiff, and as a result, he was placed in 

administrative segregation. Plaintiff's cell was thoroughly examined and his property was removed and placed into storage. 

Plaintiff's property was not inventoried at the time it was 

removed from his cell, apparently in violation of prison regulations. When it was inventoried five days later in Plaintiff's 

presence as is required, he reported several items missing: a 

soft back dictionary, earphones, cigarettes, a writing pad, two 

pens, a pair of gloves, two jars of honey, and thermal underwear. 

He also alleged that a pair of tennis shoes and a radio had been 

damaged. 

Plaintiff brought this prose action against the United 

States and prison staff involved in the seizure of his property. 

Read broadly, Plaintiff's complaint states both a Bivens claim and 

a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). 

The government moved for summary judgment, asserting a subsequent inventory indicated most of the lost property had been 

accounted for. The government also asserted that the radio was 

already damaged at the time of the incident and that the tennis 

shoes were damaged pursuant to a search for a weapon after a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3285 Document: 010110220230 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 2 
search of Plaintiff's boots demonstrated a shank had been hidden 

beneath the insoles. The government also asserted that the honey 

had been disposed of because it was leaking onto Plaintiff's other 

belongings. In making these assertions, the government relied on 

the affidavits of prison staff and property inventory forms. 

The district court apparently accepted the evidence offered 

by the government and granted summary judgment. This appeal followed. As to the Bivens claim, the district court concluded 

Plaintiff's affidavit did not sufficiently allege the personal 

involvement of Defendant Gullegos. Regarding the claims under the 

FTCA, the court apparently determined there was no genuine issue 

of material fact and that the Plaintiff's claims were de minimus. 

In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact 

exists, "[t]he evidence of a non-movant is to be believed, and all 

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Moreover, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing 

of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not 

those of a judge, on a motion for summary judgment .... " 

Id. In addition, a prose litigant's papers are to be construed 

liberally. See. e.g., Arney v. Finney. 967 F.2d 418, 421 (10th 

Cir. 1992 ) . 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3285 Document: 010110220230 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 3 
In this case, Plaintiff filed an affidavit directly challenging the affidavits and prison documents relied upon by the government . Under these circumstances, it was inappropriate for the 

district court to choose to rely on the evidence proffered by the 

government as a basis for granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's 

FTCA claims. Neither the record nor the procedural posture of 

this case would support a conclusion that the district court based 

its decision on any deference to the decision of an administrative 

proceeding. We agree that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a 

material issue of fact exists with regard to his Bivens claim 

against Defendant Gullegos . 

We AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant 

Gullegos, and we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment in favor of 

the United States. The matter is REMANDED for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3285 Document: 010110220230 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 4