A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A p ril18,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

RO NNI E BR US CI NO,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. M IC H A E L V . P U G H ; E . J. GAL L E GOS ; J E NNI F E R G RU NDY; RA N D Y W A TSO N ; D A N SCH O FF; J OHN DO E CO L L I NS ; J OHN DO E DE RR ; J OHN DO E GUR DI AN; J OHN DOE GR I S BY ; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF A M E R I C A ; and U nknow n Feder al E m ploy ees, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1182 ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CV- 2 3 6 2 - LT B- P AC)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , C i r cui tJ udge, BROR BY , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

R onni e B rus ci no, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t d ism iss in g h is c laim s u n d e r B iv e n s v . S ix U n k n o w n N am ed A g en ts of F ed era l B u rea u o f N arc o ti cs, 40 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ), and the Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct( “FT C A ”) . W e AF F I RM . B rus ci no i s an i nm at e of the U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryA dm i ni s tr at i ve M axi m um ( “A D X ”) i n Fl or ence , C ol or ado. H e cl ai m s t hatA D X empl oy ees have t aken hi s m ai l and per s onal pr oper ty , and al l ow ed i nm at e i nform ant s t o exami ne hi s m ai l as partof a s cheme t o m anufa ctur e cha r ges agai ns thi m . I n s uppor tof h is F irst A m e n d m e n t B iv e n s c laim s, B ru sc in o a lleg e s th e fo llo w in g : (1 ) In Ju ly 2 0 0 0 , R a n d yW a tso n o p e n e d a p iec e o f B ru sc in o ’s le g a l m a il an d g a v e it t o i nm at e i nform ant s t o r ead, del ay i ng i t s del i veryunt i l A ugus t1, 2000; ( 2) Som et i m e af

t erA ugus t2000, W at s on, D an Schoff, E . J . G al l egos , and M i chae l P u g h a llo w e d in m a te in fo rm a n ts to re a d B ru sc in o ’s m a il; (3 ) S c h o ff im p ro p e rly r ej ect ed B rus ci no’ s out goi ng m ai l i n Sept ember2001; ( 4) “J ohn D oe” Col l i ns and G al l ego s r efused t o all ow B rusci no t o co rr espon d w i th o ther A D X i nm at es, pr event i ng hi m fr om obt ai ni ng aff i davi t s ; ( 5) I n N ovember2000 “J ohn D oe” G r i s bydi d notal l ow B rus ci no t o r ece i ve a ne w s art i cl e fr om hi s att orney , and opened a l ett erfr om hi s att orneyout s i de B rus ci no’ s pr es ence ; and ( 6) Pugh and J enni ferG rundyknew of and a cqui es ced i n the al l egedl yuncons t i tut i onal conduct des cr i bed above . B rus ci no al s o s eeks damages undert he FT C A forpr i s on o ffic ia ls ’ a lle g e d d e s tru c tio n a n d c o n fis c a tio n o f h is p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y .-3-

A m agi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended Brus ci no’ s FT C A cl ai m be di s m i s s ed for l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he FT C A ’ s l i m i t ed w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni tydoes notext end t o cl ai m s “ar i s i ng i n r es pectof the . . . det ent i on of any goods , m er chandi s e, orotherpr oper tybyanyoffi cerof cus t om s orexci s e orany otherl aw enfor cementoffi cer . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2680( c) . C oncl udi ng thatpr i s on offi ci al s cons t i tut e “otherl aw enfor cementoffi cer [s ] , ” the magi s tr at e j udge re c o m m e n d e d h o ld in g th a t s o v e re ig n im m u n ity ro b b e d th e c o u rt o f ju ri s d ic tio n . T he magi s tr at e j udge al s o r ecomm ended thats um m aryj udgm entbe gr ant ed ag ains t B rusc ino o n h is B iven s claim s. S h e n o ted th at B rusc ino ’s prim ary e v id e n c e su g g e stin g th a t d e fe n d a n ts h a d o p e n e d h is m a il w a s in a d m iss ib le hear s ay . A l though i tappea r ed thatthe A ugus t2000 l et t erhad bee n opened pr i or t o B rus ci no’ s r ece i ptof i t , t her e w as no evi dence of an i m pr operm ot i ve behi nd the openi ng. She concl uded thata thr ee- w eek de l ayi n m ai l del i very , w i thoutany i ndi cat i on of i m pr operm ot i ve, di d notr i s e t o the l evel of a c ons t i tut i onal v iolati o n . S ee S m ith v . M asc h n er, 89 9 F . 2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 3 -44 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). R e g a rd in g B ru sc in o ’s c laim th a t S c h o ff im p ro p e rlyre f

u se d to se n d h is Sept ember2001 m ai l , the magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended a fi ndi ng thatthe l et t er cont ai ned i nform at i on i nt ended foranotheri nm at e. She r ecomm ended di s m i s s i ng th is c laim b e c a u se re g u latin g in m a te- to -in m a te c o m m u n ica tio n is “ re a so n a b ly r el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” Turne rv. Safl ey , 482 U . S. 78, 89 (1 9 8 7 ).-4-

T he magi s tr at e j udge al s o r ecomm ended rul i ng thatB rus ci no had no r i ght to p ro c u re sta tem e n ts f ro m o th e r in m a tes b e c a u se h e w a s n o t (a t th a t p o in t) i nvol ved i n anypendi ng l egal pr ocee di ngs . See 28 C . F. R . § 540. 17. Fi nal l y , as t o the cl ai m s r egar di ng G r i s by , the magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended f i ndi ng that th e re stric tio n o f

th e n e w sp a p e r a rticle in q u e stio n w a s a lso “ re a so n a b lyre late d to le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s ts .” T u rn e r, 4 8 2 U .S . a t 8 9 . O v e r B ru sc in o ’s o bjec tio n s, th e d istric t co u rt a d o p ted th e m a g istra te j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on i n ful l and di s m i s s ed B rus ci no’ s cas e. B rus ci no now a p p e a ls . “W e r evi ew t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, a p p lyin g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd th a t s h o u ld h a v e b e e n u s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” R i ver a v. C i ty& C ount yof D enver , 365 F. 3d 912, 920 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e “i f the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the part i es ’ br i efs , the r ecor d on appea l , and the pert i nentl aw , w e A F F I R M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t-5-

courtfors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons s t at ed i n the February21, 2006, r ecomm endat i on of the magi s tr at e j udge. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge