Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06405/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy D. Buford
Appellant
Charles Leck
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BILLY D. BUFORD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

F l L .l.J D , . States Court (!f Appea- Uroted Tenth Circutt 

APR 20 1993 

ROBERT L. HOEC'Kl 

Clerk 

v . No. 92-6405 

CHARLES LECK, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D . C. No . CIV-92-1964-C) 

(W. D. Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed . R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Buford, a federal inmate and prose litigator, appeals a 

decision dismissing his complaint as frivolous. We grant 

* This order and judgment has no prece dential value and s hall 

n ot b e c ited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

ex cept for purposes o f establishing the doctrines of the law of 

t h e c ase, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 .3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-6405 Document: 010110212787 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 1 
permission to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 

Mr. Buford brought this action for violation of his federal 

constitutional rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971 ) . Mr. Buford alleged a correctional officer made 

demeaning racial comments. Specifically, the corrections officer 

allegedly said: "Buford, how long have you been black? And has 

it been all of your life that you've known it or part of it?" Mr. 

Buford asked $80,000 in damages. 

The district court, reasoning that the use of vile language, 

no matter how abhorrent or reprehensible, does not constitute a 

constitutional deprivation, dismissed the complaint as frivolous. 

Mr. Buford appeals this decision asserting he was denied due 

process by the district court's dismissal . 

We note that we do not condone the racially derogatory 

remarks allegedly made by the respondent. Nevertheless, to have 

his case heard in federal court, Mr. Buford must allege a 

violation of a constitutionally protected right. Because Mr. 

Buford's suit is a Bivens action against a federal official, the 

law under § 1983 is not directly applicable. "Nevertheless 

section 1983 suits and Bivens actions are conceptually identical, 

and federal courts frequently look to section 1983 to fill gaps 

left by Bivens." Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6405 Document: 010110212787 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 2 
Cir. 1987). Under 42 U. S.C. § 1983, this court has held that 

words alone, no matter how reprehensible, are not sufficient to 

state a constitutional deprivation. Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 

825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979 ) . 

Mr. Buford responds on appeal by asserting that medical "harm 

resulted both physically and mentally from the racial and bigoted 

statements inflicted" and the racial statements "caused physical 

injury indirectly." 

The fact that Mr. Buford may have been physically and 

mentally wounded by defendant's remarks does not elevate 

defendant's speech to the status of a deprivation of Mr. Buford's 

constitutional rights. A vile, reprehensible, and detestable 

racial slur made on one isolated occasion does not violate an 

individual's constitutional rights entitling him to monetary 

relief. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6405 Document: 010110212787 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6405 Document: 010110212787 Date Filed: 04/20/1993 Page: 4