## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
CO RN ELI U S E. PEO PLES,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. CCA DETEN TI ON CEN TERS; FRED LAW REN CE, W a r d e n ; RO GER M O O R E , Sr . , A s s i s t antW ar den; J A M E S P E R R Y , C h i e f o f S e c u r i ty; J A Y F O S K E T T , C a p t a i n o f S e c u r i ty; CO RR E CT I ONS CO RP OR AT I ON OF A M E R I C A ; A N D R E FO R D , C hi ef of Se c ur i ty ; J A CQ U ELY N BA N K S, As s i s t a n tW a r d e n ; BRUCE R O B E R T S, L i eut enantC l as s i fi cat i on Per s onnel ; G A R Y FU L L E R , L egal S ervi ces for Pri soners,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N os . 04- 3071 & 04- 3124

AP P EA LS F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. Ct . No s . 0 3 - CV- 3 1 2 9 - KHV, 0 2 - CV- 3 2 9 8 - CM ) C ornel i us E . Peopl es , pr o s e, i n 04- 3124. A m anda H . Fr os t , ( B r i an W ol fm an, w i th heron the br i efs ) , Publ i c C i t i zen L i t i gat i on G r oup, W as hi ngt on, D . C . , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l anti n N o. 04- 3071. M i chae l P. C r ow ( M artha B urnettC r ow , w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , C r ow , C l othi er- 2-

& B at es , L eave nw or th, K ans as , forD efe ndant s - A ppel l ees i n N os . 04- 3071 & 04- 3124. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , B AL DO CK and EBEL , S e n io r C irc u it J u d g e s , KELLY , HENR Y , B RI S CO E , LU CE RO , M UR P HY , HA RTZ , O’ BRI EN , M c CO NNELL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

P ER CURI AM . T hes e mat t er s ar e befor e us fol l ow i ng the court ’ s gr antof r ehea r i ng en banc. C ornel i us E . Peopl es or i gi nal l yfi l ed tw o s epar at e compl ai nt s fordamages pur s uantt o B ive n s v . S ix Un kn o w n Fe d e ra l Na rc o tics A g e n ts , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) . I n t hos e mat t er s , he al l eged hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed dur i ng hi s pr etr i al det ent i on ata pr i vat el yrun pr i s on undercontr actw i th the U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal s Ser vi ce. B oth di s tr i ctcourt s deni ed r el i ef. S e e Pe op l e s v . CCA D et enti on C tr. , 2 0 0 4 W L 2 2 7 8 6 6 7 (D . K an . M ar. 26 , 2 0 0 4 )(P eop les II); P eopl es v. C CA D et enti on C tr. , 2 0 0 4 W L 7 4 3 1 7 (D . K an . Jan . 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 )(P eop les I) . T hey did so, ho w ever, on differ ent gr ou nd s. I n P eop l es I, the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on . Se e P e op les v . C CA D e ten tio n C tr . , 2 0 0 4 W L 7 4 3 1 7 at *7 . In P eop les II, the courtt ook j ur i s di ct i on overt he B i vens c laim s b u t u lti m a tely di s m i s s ed the l aw s ui tforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be g ran ted p u rsua n t t o F ed . . R . C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ). P eop l es v. C CA D et enti on C tr. , 2004 W L 2278667 at*7. A panel of thi s courtaff i r m ed the j udgm ent s deny i ng- 3-

re lief. In d o in g so , h o w e v e r, itd e ter m in e d b o th d istric t co u rts h a d th e re q u isite s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r M r. P e o p le s ’ c la im s . Pe op l e s v . CCA D et enti on C enters , 422 F. 3d 1090, 1096 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he pane l w as di vi ded on the i s s ue w hetherM r . Peopl es coul d m ai nt ai n an ac t i on agai ns tthe i ndi vi dual d e fe n d a n ts , a ll o f

w h o m w e re e m p lo y e e s o f C o rr e c tio n s C o rp o ra tio n o f A m e ri c a . Id. a t 1 1 0 8 . W e su b se q u e n tlyg ra n ted re h e a rin g e n b a n c , an d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith o u r l o ca l ru le, the ju d g m en t w as v ac ated , the m an d ate stay ed , an d the c ase s w ere r es t or ed as pendi ng appea l s . 10t h C i r . R . 35. 6. T he courtdi d notvaca t e the p a n e l o p in io n . Se e id
. ( not i ng thatthe “pa nel deci s i on i s notvaca t ed unl es s the c o u rt s o o rd e rs .” ). O n th is re h e a rin g , w e h a v e d e ter m in e d u n a n im o u slyth a t th e d istric t co u rts had s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthes e cl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , thatpor t i on of the panel deci s i on s t ands , and the di s tr i ctcour tj udgm enti n P eop les I i s r ever s ed
w ith re s p e c t to th a t is s u e . See P eopl es , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 5

– 9 6 . W e a re e v e n ly d ivide d , h o w ev er, fo r sub stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s as a re se t fo rth in the p an el’s
m aj or i tyand di s s ent i ng opi ni ons , on the ques t i on w hethera B i vens a c tio n is avai l abl e aga i ns templ oy ees of a pr i vat el y - oper at ed pr i s on. B eca us e ther e i s no m aj or i tyon the en ba nc pane l , the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng i n P eop les II o n th is is s u e is a ffir m e d b ya n e q u a lly d iv id e d c o u rt . See ZuniP ub. Sch. D is t . No. 89 v. U
. S. D ept . of

E d. , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); United S tates v. R i vera , 874 F. 2d 754 ( 10th C i r . 1989) . T hatpor t i on of the or i gi nal panel opi ni on addr es s i ng- 4-

th is is s u e is , th e re fo re , v a c a te d a n d la c k s p re c e d e n tia l v a lu e . See Peopl es , 422 F .3 d a t 1 0 9 6

– 1 1 0 8 . A s a cons equenc e of ourconcl us i ons , the j udgm enti n appea l num ber04- 3 0 7 1 , P eop l es I, i s R E V E R SE D , and thatm at t eri s r emanded t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as w i th i ns truct i ons t o conductaddi t i onal pr ocee di ngs i n l i ghtof ouropi ni on r egar di ng the court ’ s s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed, the j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt fo r t h e D is tr ic t o f K a n s a s in a p p e a l n u m b e r 0 4 -3 1 2 4 , P eop les II, is A F F IR M E D .