Bivens v. Six Unk nown Named Agen tsof th e F ederal Bu reau of Narcot ics , 403 U.S. 1 3 8 8( 1 9 7 1 ). 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40357

ANT HONY B OY D P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. J O E D . D R IV E R , e t al

. D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , SM ITH , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: A nt hony B oyd, a fede r al pri so ner , f i l ed a Bi v e ns a c t i o n a ga i ns t num e r o us 1 pri son em pl oyees al l egi n g t h at t h ey i n i t i ated cr i m i nalc har ge s a ga i ns thi m based
o n t w o O c t o be r 200 4 as s aul t s be t w e e n B o yd and pr i s o n st af f

. Boy d r e po r t e d t he
as s aul t s t o t he Bur e au o f Pr i s o ns Reg i o nalO f f i c e c l ai m i ng t hat h e w as t he vi c t i m and t hat vi deo ev i denc e c orrob or at es hi s vi ew and s how s t hat he w as handcuf

fe d. Af t e r Boy d’ s r e po r t , pr i s o n e m pl o ye e s g av e s t at e m e nt s r e ga r di ng t he a s s aul t s t hat r e s ul t e d i n a n i ndi c t m e nt a gainst B oyd

. H e w as t r i e d a nd
a cq u i tted in fed era l cou rt. United States Court of A pp eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust13, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40357

The distric t co urt reac hed the merits after decli nin g to ruleonw he t her Boy d h ad 2 exhau sted pri son administrativ e re medies and the gove rnment n ow raises th e exh austi on issue on appeal. Th e a pplicableexhau stionprovi sionapp lie s onlyto sui t s “br ou ght with respect to prisoncon ditio ns.” 42 U.S.C. § 1 997 e(a). I n P or t er v . Nu ss le , 53 4 U

. S

. 5 16 , 53 2 (200 1), th e C ourth eld that t he " exhau stionrequir ementapp lie s to allin mate suits abo ut prisonlife, whe therth eyinvo lv e gen eralcircumstan ces or particu lar episode s, an d whether theyallege e xce ssiveforc e o r some othe r wrong." Despite that sweeping defi niti on of pri soner clai ms that must be exhau sted, a nd alth ough the clai med a ssaultbyB oy d is releva nt to his clai m, thecl aim itself is for perju ry an d tamperin g with eviden ce in a federalcourt pro ceedi ng a n d th u s d oe s n ot qu a lify , u n de r th e or di n a ry me a n in g of th e te rm , a s b ei n g" ab ou t pris onl if e. " Th e e xh austi on requirement doe s no t b ar Boy d's a ction

. In re Katri na Cana l Brea che s Litig. , 495 F.3d 19 1, 205(5th C ir. 2 007). The distric t 3 cour t als o s tat ed it dis mi ss ed the act ion as frivol ous , cit ing 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S .C. § 1 9 1 5A

. Ou r revie w wh en b oth of th es e st a tu te s arer ef erre d tor em a in s de n ov o. Gie ger v . Jowers , 4 0 4F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 3 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). SeeSca n la nv . Texas A&M U n iv

. , 34 3 F. 3 d 53 3 , 5 3 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (h ol di n gth a t “[i] n 4 determi nin g wheth er t o gr an tamotion to di smiss, thedistrict court must not go‘o utsideof the plea ding s’” except for in the limit ed exceptio n where docume nts that are “referr ed to in the plai ntiff’ s compl aint a nd are central to the p la in t if f ’s cl aim” are atta ched to amoti on to di smi ss)

. 2 B oyd ’ s i n st an t com pl ai n t al l ege s t h at pri son em pl oyees com m i t t ed p erj u ry at hi s a s s aul t t r i aland de s t r o ye d and t am pe r e d w i t h vi de o e vi de nc e s ho w i ng he
w as t h e v i c t i m o f

t h e a s s a u l t s . He l a b e l s h i s c a u s e o f a c t i o n a s a “ m a l i c i o us p r o s e c u tio n co n s p ir a c y .” Th e di st r i c t c our t gr ant ed t he def endant s’m ot i on t o di sm i ss . I t rul ed t hat Boy d c o ul d no t s ho w t hat t he c r i m i nala c t i o n was b r o ugh t a ga i ns t hi m w i t ho ut p r o b a b le ca u s e b e c a u s e re c o r d s in d ic a ti n g th a t B o y d w a s a d m in is tr a tiv e ly di sc i pl i ned f

or one of

t he as sa ul t s, al ong w i t h t he fac t t hat B oyd w as i ndi c t ed by
a gr and j ur y, s uf

f i c i e nt l y e s t ab l i s he d t he pr o ba bl e c aus e e l e m e nt o f m al i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n. 2 W e revi ew a di st ri ct court’ s gran t of a m ot i on t o di sm i ss de no vo . W h ile 3
w e d is a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s u s e o f d o c u m e n ts “ o u ts id e o f th e p le a d in g s ,” i n de c i di ng t o g r ant t he m o t i o n t o di s m i s s , w e ne e d no t e l ab o r at e o n t hat po i nt 4 as t h e m al i ci ou s prosec u t i on cl ai m fai l s non et h el ess. B ecau se “ t h e asser t i on ofN o. 08- 40357

C as t el la n o v. F

ra gozo , 352 F.3 d 939 , 953 (5thC ir. 2 003) (enba nc). Altho ugh the clai m 5 in Cast ellano wa s br ou gh t u n de r § 1 9 8 3 , wh il e B oy d inv ok es Bivens , th e co nstitution al torts a u th oriz edby eac h ar e c oe xte n siv e. See I zen v. C atalin a , 39 8 F .3d 3 63, 367n .3 (5 th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ); Eva n s v. Bal l , 16 8 F .3d 8 56, 863n . 10 (5th Cir.199 9) (“A Bive ns acti on is a nal ogous to an acti on und er § 19 83—the only dif f er en ce b ein g that § 198 3 a pplie s to constituti onal vio lati on s b yst a te , rath erth a nf ed er a l, o ff

ic ials .” ). SeeE st el lev . Gam b le , 429 U.S. 9 7, 1 06 (197 6) (“Th e h andwrittenprose docume nt is 6 tob e lib er a llyc on st ru ed .” ). Cast ellano , 35 2 F .3d at 9 42. 7 3 m al i ci ou s prosec u t i on st ates n o const i t u t i on al cl ai m , ” t h at c l ai m al on e does not suppor t a B i vens ac t i o n. 5 H o w e ve r , Boy d’ s ha ndwri t t e n pr o s e c o m pl ai nt i nc l ude s a l l e ga t i o ns suppor t i ng a di r ec t due pr oc es s c l ai m . Boyd cl ai m s t hat pri so n em pl oye es gave 6 perj u red t est i m on y at h i s cri m i n al tri al a n d destr oyed a n d t am pered w i t h vi deo evi den ce of

t h e al l eged assault s. W h i l e a m al i ci ou s prosecuti on cl ai m does n ot i ne vi t ab l y e nt ai l c o ns t i t u t i o nalde pr i va t i o n, t he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s “ m anufac t ur i ng of evide n ce a n d k n ow i n g u se of t h a t evide n ce a l on g w i th pe rj u red testi m on y to ob tain a w ron gfu l con victi on de p ri ve s a d efen d a n t of h i s l on g re cog n i ze d ri gh t t o a fa ir tr ia l s e c u r e d b y th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e .” T h e a ll e g a t io n s in B o y d ’s 7
com p l a i n t gi ve ri se to claim s of direct con sti tu ti on a l de p ri va ti on tha t su p p ort a Bi v e ns ac t i o n. W e e xp r e s s no vi e w o n t he v al i di t y o f a ny o f Boy d' s c l ai m s , o n t he
a c c u r a c y o f h is fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s , o r o n w h a t d e c is io n s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld
m a k e o n re m a n d

. A F F IR M E D i n pa rt; R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D i n pa rt.