Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06221/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06221-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. Defibaugh
Appellee
Flynn
Appellee
Larry J. Glaze
Appellant
Little
Appellee

Document Text:

.. .. 

FIL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 2 9 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk LARRY J. GLAZE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

FLYNN; H. DEFIBAUGH; LITTLE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6221 

(D.C. No. CIV90-130-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant Larry Glaze appeals prose from the 

district court's dismissal of his Bivens action against prison 

authorities. The district court found that Glaze had failed to 

exhaust administrative remedies and consequently dismissed his 

action without prejudice. Glaze argues on appeal that exhaustion 

of administrative remedies is not required when a plaintiff seeks 

* 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. 

** After exam1n1ng 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6221 Document: 010110064915 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 1 
money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 

U.S. 388 (1971). 

This court recently reaffirmed that Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 

664 (10th Cir. 1979), does not exempt Bivens actions from the 

exhaustion requirement. McCarthy v. Maddigan, No. 90-3112, slip. 

op. at 3-4 (10th Cir. Sept. 20, 1990) (WESTLAW 1990 WL 134732). 

We have reviewed the record and briefs filed in connection with 

this appeal and are persuaded that the district court correctly 

dismissed Glaze's action for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons set 

forth by the district court in its order attached hereto. See 

Glaze v. Flynn, No. CIV-9--130-P, unpub. order (W.D. Okla. May 31, 

1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6221 Document: 010110064915 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 2 
- _., 

LARRY 

vs. 

FLYNN, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

J. GLAZE, 

Plaintiff 

ET AL., 

Defendants 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ?i l~ D . 'WI \ii. ,, a.. 

} 

} 

} 

} 

} CIV-90-130-P 

} 

} 

} 

} 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

MAY 3 1 90 

Rl",8EITT 0. OtNNIS 

CLE~K, U.S. OIST~ICT COURT 

v;r:::~n .. -::1 DISTR!CT 0~ O"~~':''..'A 

EY r-'":>1JTY ~ 

IJOCKETEo 

The Plaintiff, a federal prisoner appearing pro se and in 

forma pauperis, brings this Bivens-style action (referring to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) allegi ng 

a denial of certain constitutionally protected rights. The 

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiff has 

filed a pleading which the Court construes as a response to the 

motion. Thus, the motion is at issue. 

The Plaintiff's contention is that the Defendant correctional 

officers "confiscated" his legal materials pertaining to a pending 

appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiff further states that the 

"confiscation of these materials is denying Plaintiff access to the 

Court. 11 Upon motion of the Plaintiff, this Court previously issued 

a temporary restraining order preventing the Defendants from 

removing from the premises of FCI El Reno any of the Plaintiff's 

legal materials, that had not already been removed. 

The relevant facts are that the Plaintiff was transferred to 

Appellate Case: 90-6221 Document: 010110064915 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 3 
the FCI El Reno from the USP Leavenworth on or about December 16, 

1989. In early January, 1990, the Plaintiff's personal property 

arrived from Leavenworth and the property was inventoried by the 

Plaintiff and by the Defendant Little. Included in the Plaintiff's 

personal property were several folders of legal materials. Due to 

limited storage space and pursuant to Bureau of Prisons' policy, 

the Defendant Little directed the Plaintiff to determine which of 

the legal materials were needed, so that the remainder of the 

materials could be mailed out of the institution. As a result, two 

folders of legal materials were mailed to the Plaintiff's mother. 

The facts are in dispute whether the Plaintiff selected the two 

folders that were mailed out of the institution or whether the 

Defendant Little arbitrarily made that choice. The facts are 

further in dispute over whether the Plaintiff's mother actually 

received the legal materials, with the Plaintiff denying that she 

received them and with the Defendants producing signed receipts for 

the mailing. For the reasons stated herein, it is not necessary 

for the Court to resolve these factual disputes at the present 

time. 

The Defendants move for dismissal of the complaint, contending 

that the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies. The Plaintiff apparently concedes this point, but he 

argues that exhaustion would be futile since he is seeking damages. 

However, it appears that the essence of the Plaintiff's complaint 

is to prevent the correctional officers from "confiscating" his 

personal property and to return his legal materials. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-6221 Document: 010110064915 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 4 
In any event, the Tenth Circuit has consistently held that in 

a Bivens suit, federal prisoners must exhaust their administrative 

remedies in accordance with Bureau of Prisons' policy before 

seeking relief in the federal courts. See Mower v. swyhart, 545 

F.2d 103, 104 (10th Cir. 1973); Rivera v. Toft, 477 F.2d 534, 536 

(10th Cir. 1973); Payne v. Day, 440 F.Supp. 785, 787 (W.D. Okla. 

1977). The fact that the Plaintiff has added a prayer for damages 

does not diminish the practical reasons for the exhaustion 

requirement as stated in Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-667 (10th 

Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980). In fact, the 

Plaintiff in Brice had also sought damages in addition to 

injunctive and declaratory relief, but the Court stated that "if 

we assume that the petitions before us could indicate a Bivens 

cause of action as the appellants argue, we must nevertheless 

require an initial administrative inquiry." Id. at 666. 

Since the Plaintiff's complaint shows on its face that he has 

not exhausted administrative review in the Bureau of Prisons, the 

Court finds that the complaint should be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

Furthermore, the temporary restraining order entered on February 

5, 1990 is hereby dissolved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this :J/ day of May 1990. 

IA~ -~ PHILLS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

[NH:Ji£0 IN JUDG£M£NT DOCKET ON -5- 3 I-'? o 

3 ._.,. 

Appellate Case: 90-6221 Document: 010110064915 Date Filed: 10/29/1990 Page: 5