T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### Jan u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT W IN F R E D C IC E R O , J R .,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N os . 06- 3109 and 06- 3162 v. (D . K ansas) (F N U ) M IT C H E L L , A ss o c iate W a r d e n , USP Le a v e n worth , UN I TED S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA N, ( F NU) A SH M A N , A s s oc i a t e W a r de n, U SP Le a v e n wo rth , ( F NU) O’ CONNO R, W a rd e n , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 3 2 7 3 - S AC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi 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 tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 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.-2-

W i nfr ed C i cer o, 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 d ism iss a l o f

h is a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, w h ich a lleg e d h e w a s u n law f u lly p lac e d a n d h e ldin a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n a t th e U n ited S tate s P e n iten tiary i n L eave nw orth, K ans as . T he di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatM r . C i cer o had not exhaus t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es forbr i ngi ng an ac t i on B ive n s v . S ix Unknow n Nam ed Agents of FederalB ur eau of

Nar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) and had nots t at ed a c l ai m underthe Feder al T ortC l ai m s A ct, 28 U . S. C . § 2875( a) ( “FT C A ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntw i thout pr ej udi ce, and deni ed M r . C i cer o’ s m ot i on, w hi ch he r enew s befor e us , t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris (“ IF P ” ). T h e d istric t co u rt a lso d e n ied M r. C ice ro ’s p o stj ud gm ent m oti on t o am end his com plai nt. F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, w e revers e and r emand. I . BA CK GR OUND M r . C i cer o, w ho i dent i fi es hi m s el f as a “Sunni M us l i m , ” cont ends he w as r et al i at ed aga i ns t , depr i ved of al i bertyi nt er es t , depr i ved of hi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s , and depr i ved of hi s pr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s w hen he w as s eques t er ed i n L eave nw orth’ s Speci al H ous i ng U ni tw i thoutnot i ce of char ges . I n hi s i ni t i al co m p lai n t, M r. C icero all eg ed o n lya v iolati o n o f th e F T C A . T h e d istri ct co u rt not ed how everthatM r . C i cer o coul d notpr evai l on s uch a c l ai m , becaus e ( 1) he di d notexhaus thi s FT C A cl ai m s , and/ or( 2) hi s cl ai m fordamages form ent al angui s h w er e i ns uffi ci entt o s t at e a c l ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1997( e) . T he di s tr i ct-3-

courtadded thatM r . C i cer o had exhaus t ed a B i vens c laim , b u t h a d p led it i ncorr ect l y : “[P] l ai nt i ff doc um ent s hi s ful l exhaus t i on of the B ur eau of Pr i s ons admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e pr ocedur e, w hi ch s ugges t s pl ai nt i ff maybe s eeki ng re lief fo r th e a lleg e d v io latio n o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts.” R e c . d o c . 4 , at 3 (D is t. C t. O rd e r, d a te d S e p t. 9 , 2 0 0 4 ). In re sp o n se to th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r, M r. C ice ro so u g h t to a m e n d h is compl ai nt , t o pl ead a B i vens act i on, and t o s eek c om pens at oryand i nj unct i ve r el i ef. R ec. doc. 13. T he ca s e w as r eas s i gned t o a di ffe r entdi s tr i ctcourtj udge and the di s tr i ctcourt , aft ergr ant i ng M r . C i cer o’ s m ot i on t o amend, di s m i s s ed the B i vens cl ai m , r eas oni ng thatM r . C i cer o fai l ed t o “exhaus t[hi s ] admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es on anycl ai m of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on, and hi s bar e al l egat i on of defe ndant s ’ di s cr i m i nat i on nei thers at i s fi es norexcus es thi s s t atut oryexhaus t i on requi rem ent. ” D i st . C t . O rderat3, fi l ed M arch 7, 20 06 . T he d i stri ctcou rtal so di s m i s s ed the FT C A cl ai m becaus e ( 1) M r . C i cer o’ s compl ai ntcont ai ned a m ixture o f e x h au sted an d u n ex h au sted claim s p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 9 7 e(a ); and ( 2) M r . C i cer o coul d nots at i s fy§ 1346( b) ( 2) ’ s r equi r ementact i on thats uch an ac t i on s how phy s i cal i nj ury . O n A pr i l 7, 2006, M r . C i cer o att empt ed t o amend hi s compl ai ntonce mor e. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed thi s m ot i on. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e revi ew de n ov o a d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal for fai l ure t o ex hau st a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s u n d e r § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). Se e Je rn ig a n v . Stu c h e ll , 304 F. 3d-4-

1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 2 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . L i b e r a l l yc o n s tru i n g M r . Ci c e r o ’ s p l e a d i n g s , a s we m u st, Haines v. Kerner, 4 0 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -21 (19 7 2 ); C um m i ngs v. E van s, 161 F. 3d 610, 613 ( 10th C i r . 1998) , M r . C i cer o cont ends thatthe s i x- w eek s egr egat i on w a s (1 ) a re talia to rya c t th a t (2 ) v io late d h is rig h t to e q u a l p ro tec tio n b a se d o n h is rel i gious bel i efs as a Su nn i M usl i m . H e al so al l eges that ( 3) this l i bertyi nter est depr i vat i on w as i nfl i ct ed w i thout( 4) pr ocedur al due pr oces s i n vi ol at i on of the F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. R e c . d o c . 1 3 , a t 6 -7 , A m e n d e d C o m p la in t, file d J u n e 6 , 2005. ( “Pl ai nt i ff r ece i ved no or derof det ent i on forbr eaki ng anybur eau rul es or pendi ng an i nves t i gat i on, . . . . [The W ar den] or der ed thatal l M us l i m s be t aken i nt o cus t ody[w hi ch w as ] a di s cr i m i nat i ve ac t. . . . [P] l ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal rig h ts w e re v io late d b e c a u se h e w a s ta k e n in to c u sto d yso lelyb e c a u se o f h is b eli efs in Islam an d the fac t th at he w as a M u sli m . ”). W e d isag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s de cisi o n to d ism iss M r. C icero ’s B i vens cl ai m forfai l ur e t o “pur s ue and e xhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es on any cl ai m of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. ” D i s t . C t . O r derat3, fi l ed M ar ch 7, 2006. W e s ee n o a lle g a tio n re g a rd in g ra c ia l d is c ri m in a tio n in M r. C ic e ro ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. R e c . d o c . 1 3 . A d d iti o n a lly , as th e first d istric t co u rt ju d g e h a d p re v io u slyd e ter m in e d , in i t s Sept ember9, 2004 O r der , M r . C i cer o has pr ovi ded document at i on es t abl i s hi ngSpeci fi cal l y , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatM r . C i cer o fi l ed an I nform al 1 A tt emptt o R es ol ve on Jul y22, 2004 i nform i ng s t aff atL eave nw orth of hi s due p ro c e ss rig h ts w h e n h e w a s p lac e d in th e S p e c ial H o u sin g U n it (“I w a s o n ly l ocked dow n becaus e I w as a M us l i m . ”) . R ec. doc. 1, att achment s . O n J ul y27, 2 0 0 4 , h e fi l e d a F o rm BP - 9 wi th th e wa r d e n ( “ I wa s l o c k e d d o wn . . . u p o n my ans w er i ng [as t o m yr el i gi ous pr efe r ence ] . I w as es cort ed t o [Speci al H ous i ng U ni t ] w i thoutr ec[ ei ] vi ng anyl ock- up paper s . ”) . O n A ugus t19, 2003, he fi l ed Form B P- 10 w i th the R egi onal O ffi ce ( “[A ] l l of the otherpr i s oner s thatarr i ved w ith m e w e re a d m itte d to p o p u la tio n . . I [ d id n o t] re c [ e i] v e a d e te n tio n o rd e r. O nce I ans w er ed [] I w as M us l i m , the i nt ervi ew w as overand I w as t aken t o the [Speci al H ous i ng U ni t ] . ”) , and on N ovember22, 2003, he fi l ed a form w i th the C entr al O ffi ce A dm i ni s tr at i ve R emedyA ppeal ( “w hen I appr i s ed s t aff thatI w as M us l i m , I w as det ai ned and e s cort ed t o [Speci al H ous i ng U ni t ] , becaus e of a n in c id e n t th a t o c c u r[ r] e d p ri o r t o m ya rr iv a l” ). Id. , a tta c h m e n ts to C o m p la in t. T h e re is n o q u e stio n th a t M r. C ice ro ’s fili n g s s a tisfa c to rily“ a ler t[ e d ] th e p riso n to the natur e of the w r ong forw hi ch r edr es s i s s ought . ” Kiku m u r a v . O s a g ie , 461 F. 3d 1269, 1283 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Str ong v. D avi d, 297 F. 3d 646, 650 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). -5- that he exh aust ed h i s B i vens c laim . R e c . d o c . 4 , at 3 (“ P lain tiff d o c u m e n ts h is 1 f u ll e x h a u s tio n o f

th e B u re a u o f

P ri s o n s a d m in is tr a tiv e g ri e v a n c e p ro c e d u re . . . .” ). T h e a m e n d e d c o m p la in t m a k e s n o re fe re n c e to a c la im u n d e r th e F T C A . M or eover , M r . C i cer o’ s appel l at e br i ef a nd hi s pos t -j udgm entm ot i on t o amend i ndi cat e thatw hen M r . C i cer o amended hi s compl ai ntpur s uantt o the di s tr i ct court ’ s s ugges t i on he i nt ended t o change “F. T . C . A . ” t o “ B i vens ” thr oughoutthe c o m p la in t. See R e c . d o c . 2 5 , a t 2 (“ A m e n d m e n t,” file d A p ri l 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). I I I . CO NC L US I ON A cc o rdin g ly , w e R E V E R S E the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d ism issi n g M r. C icero ’s co m p lai n t and R E M A N D to the d istri ct co u rtso that the d istri ct co u rt m ayevaluat e M r. C i cero’ s cl ai m that he w as r et al i at ed an d d i scr i m i nated against-6-

w hen he w as pl aced int o ad m i nis trat i ve segregati on based u po n h i s st atus as a M u sli m . W e G R A N T M r. C icero ’s m o ti o n to p roc ee d IF P an d rem ind M r. C icero thathe mustcont i nue maki ng part i al paym ent s unt i l the ent i r e bal ance of the appel l at e fi l i ng fee i s pai d.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge