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. See 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

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

### A u gu s t10,2006 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 J UNI OR CLAYTON M ENT EE R, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. A P P L E B E E , L ieuten an t of the G u ard F o r c e ; DR. BOW LI N; F REDE RI CK LAU REN CE, W a r d e n ; HELEN (L N U ), L ieuten an t; (F N U ) (L N U ), La u n d ryLa d y ; UN I TED STATES M A R S H A L , for D i stri ctof K ansas; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; UN I TED STATES ATTO RN EY GE NE RA L ; CO RR E CT I ONS CO RP OR AT I ON OF AM E RI CA , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3052 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 3 0 5 4 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , EBEL , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.- 2-

Pl ai nt i ff J uni orC l ayt on M ent eer , appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s m e m o ra n d u m a n d o rd e r g ra n tin g d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s . E x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffirm in p a rt, rev e rse in p a rt, and rem and for further proceedings. M r. M e n tee r is a fe d e ra l p riso n e r w h o , at th e tim e re lev a n t to th e fa c ts u n d e rl y in g th is c a s e , w a s in c a rc e ra te d in th e L e a v e n w o rt h D e te n tio n C e n te r, a p r i v a t e p r i s o n ru n b yd e fe n d a n tCo rr e c t i o n s Co rp o r a t i o n o f Am e r i c a ( CC A) p u rsu a n t to a c o n tra c t w ith th e U n ited S tate s M a rsh a ls S e rv ice . H e a lleg e d th a t, aft erhe s l i pped on a w etfl oorand s pr ai ned hi s ankl e, he w as gi ven onl yan ac e b a n d a g e . H e a lso a lleg e d th a t, i n a late r in c id e n t, C C A e m p lo y e e s d e n ied h is r eques t s fornew s hoes and, as a r es ul t , he tr i pped on a l oos e fl ap hangi ng fr om hi s w orn pai r , fel l dow n the s t ai r s , and fr actur ed hi s ankl e and f i nger . H e further a l l e g e d th a tC C A m e d i c a l p e r s o n n e l p r o v i d e d i n a d e q u a t e tr e a t m e n tfo rth i s i nj u r y, i ncl udi ng del ayi n tr eat i ng the i nj ur yappr opr i at el yand deny i ng hi s r eques t s for pai n m edi cat i on bot h befor e and a ft ers ur geryon hi s ankl e. In h is co m p lai n t, M r. M en teer ass erted a c lai m u n d er B ive n s v . S ix Unknow n Nam ed Agents of Feder alB ur eau of

Nar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) , for v io latio n s o f

h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss a n d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to b e f re e o f c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. H e a lso b ro u g h t a cl ai m undert he Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ct , 28 U . S. C . §§ 1346( b) , 2671- 2680 ( F TCA) , a n d a b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c tc l a i m p u r s u a n tt o th e Tu c k e rAc t , 2 8 U. S . C.M r. M e n tee r’s fo rm b rie f o n a p p e a l is c o m p lete lyb lan k . T h u s, h e fa iled to 1 i dent i fyanyi s s ues forappea l orpr ovi de anyar gum ent . W e ca ut i on M r . M ent eer th a t s u c h d e fic ie n c ie s o rd in a ri ly re s u lt in w a iv e r. See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. C l i ngm an , 28 8 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 87 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ). N evertheles s, w e w i l l exerci se o u r d is c re tio n to re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g s . C f. Mu rr e ll v. Sh a la la , 43 F. 3d 1388, 1389- 90 & n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( s um m ar i l ycons i der i ng, i n the alt ern ati v e, th e m erit s o f a n issue n o t cha ll en g ed an d o therw ise d ee m ed w aive d ).

- 3- § 1346( a) ( 2) , thatw as bas ed on a thi r d- partybenef i ci arytheory . E ach c l ai m w as di r ect ed atal l defe ndant s , and he s ought$3 m i l l i on i n damages . T he U ni t ed St at es , the U ni t ed St at es M ar s hal forthe D i s tr i ctof K ans as , and the U ni t ed St at es A tto rn e yG e n e ra l (to g e th e r, F e d e ra l D e fe n d a n ts) filed a m o tio n to d ism iss o r, in th e a l t e rn a t i v e , fo rs u mma r yj u d g me n t . Th e r e ma i n i n g d e fe n d a n t s ( CCA D efe ndant s ) fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s . B oth m ot i ons t o di s m i s s r el i ed on F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(1 ) a n d (6 ). T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted b o th m o tio n s to d is m is s a n d d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t. T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be g ra n te d . U. S. Wes t, Inc. v. Tris tani , 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Sut t on v. Utah Stat e Sch. f

orthe D eaf

& Bl i nd , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). B ec au se M r. M en teer ap p ea rs pro se, w e re v iew h is plead ing s an d o ther p ap ers l i ber al l yand hol d them t o a l es s s tr i ngents t andar d than thos e dr aft ed by a tto rn e y s . See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (1 9 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 & n . 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 1- 4-

T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the br eac h of contr actcl ai m agai ns tthe Feder al D e fe n d a n ts fo r la c k o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to th e T u c k e r A c t, w hi ch pr ovi des forexcl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on i n the C our tof Feder al C l ai m s for b re a c h o f

c o n tr a c t c la im s s e e k in g in e x c e s s o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , s ee 2 8 U. S . C. §§ 1346( a) ( 2) , 1491. T he courtdi s m i s s ed the br eac h of contr actcl ai m as t o the C C A D efe ndant s beca us e M r . M ent eerhad al l eged no j ur i s di ct i onal bas i s other than the TuckerA ct , w hi ch onl yauthor i zes j ur i s di ct i on overbr eac h of contr act c la im s b ro u g h t a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s , s ee i d. § 1 3 4 6 (a )(2 ). W e a g re e w ith thes e rul i ngs and affi r m t hem for s ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as s etfor th i n t he d istri ct co u rt ’s m em o ran d u m an d o rde r. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the FT C A cl ai m as t o al l defe ndant s exce ptt he U ni t ed St at es beca us e “[ t ] he U ni t ed St at es i s the onl ypr operdefe ndanti n an FT C A act i on[, ] ” O xendi ne v. Kaplan , 2 4 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 5 n .4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he di s tr i ctcourtt hen di s m i s s ed the FT C A cl ai m as t o the U ni t ed St at es under the i ndepende ntcontr act orexce pt i on s etfor th i n Logue v. Uni t ed Stat es , 41 2 U. S. 521 ( 1973) . I n Logue , the Supr eme C our thel d thatan FT C A cl ai m coul d notbe m ai nt ai ned aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es forthe ac t s of a pr i s on contr act orw her e the co n tr ac t “clearlyco n tem p lat ed that the d ay -t o -da yo p era ti o n s o f th e c o n tr ac tor’s fa c ili ties w e re to b e in th e h a n d s o f th e c o n tra c to r, w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t’s ro le l i m i t ed t o the paym entof s uffi ci ent l yhi gh r at es t o i nduce the contr act ort o do a good j ob, ” i d. at 52 9 , an d w h ere the g o v ern m en t did n o t sup erv ise th e c o n tr ac tor’s- 5-

d a ily o p e ra tio n s , i d. at 53 0 . P erc eivin g n o erro r, w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s rul i ngs on t he FT C A cl ai m fors ubs t ant i al l ythe s ame r eas ons as s etfor th i n the co u rt ’s m em o ran d u m an d o rde r. I n i t s anal y s i s of the B i vens cl ai m , the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the Feder al D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s as t o the U ni t ed St at es forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er ju ri s d ic tio n b a s e d o n s o v e re ig n im m u n ity, s ee Fa rm e r v . P e rr ill , 275 F. 3d 958, 963 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . Fort he s ame r eas on, the di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the B i vens cl ai m as t o the U . S. A t t orneyG ener al and the U . S. M ar s hal i n thei roffi ci al c a p a c itie s , s ee i d. T he di s tr i ctcour tal s o di s m i s s ed the B i vens cl ai m agai ns tthe U . S. A t t or neyG ener al and the U . S. M ar s hal i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es for fa ilu re to a lle g e p e rs o n a l p a rt ic ip a tio n o r a c tu a l k n o w le d g e a n d a c q u ie s c e n c e , s ee Woodw ar d v. C i t

y of Wor land , 977 F. 2d 1392, 1400 ( 10th C i r . 1992) . For s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as s etfor th i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s m emora ndum and order, w e affirm t hese rul i ng s. A s t o the corpor at e ent i ty , C C A , the di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the B i vens cl ai m pur s uantt o C or r ect i onalSer vi ces C or p. v. Mal es ko , 5 3 4 U .S . 6 1 (2 0 0 1 ). I n Mal es ko , t he Supr eme C our tdecl i ned t o i nfera cons t i tut i onal t or tr emedy a g a in s t a p ri v a te c o rp o ra tio n . Id. at70- 71. W e ther efor e affi r m thi s rul i ng for s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as s etfor th i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s m emora ndum and o rde r.- 6-

T he courtnextext ended the r eas oni ng of Mal es ko t o th e i n d i v i d u a l CCA defe nd ants : W hen an e m pl oy ee of a pr i vat e corpor at i on has al l egedl yvi ol at ed an in d iv id u a l’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t an d a n a ltern a tiv e re m e d yis avai l abl e, a B i vens act i on cannotbe mai nt ai ned. See Peopl es v. C C A D et ent i on C ent er [s ] , [N o. 03- 3129- K H V , ] 2004 W L 74317 ( D . K an. J an. 15, 2004) . I n t hi s cas e, pl ai nt i ff c oul d pur s ue a negl i gence cl ai m i n s t at e courtand, i n s o doi ng, have a l es s er s t andar d t o m eetthan the hei ght ened “ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” s t andar d of the Ei ghth A m endment . Si nce pl ai nt i ff ha s al t ernat i ve s t at e r emedi es avai l abl e, t he B i vens cl ai m agai ns tthe [i ndi vi dual C C A ] defe ndant s i s di s m i s s ed. R ., D o c . 3 0 a t 7 . T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r el i ance on the P eopl es cas e ci t ed i n the for egoi ng pas s age (P eop l es I) i ndi cat es thatthe bas i s forthe di s m i s s al of the B i vens c laim a s to th e in d iv id u a l C C A d e fe n d a n ts w a s la c k o f s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See P eop l es I, 2004 W L 74317, at*7 ( di s m i s s i ng s uch a c l ai m forl ack of s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on) . T hi s di s pos i t i on, how ever , w as i m pr oper . A ft erthe di s tr i ct court ’ s deci s i on, a pane l of thi s courtr ever s ed P eop l es I, cl ar i fy i ng thatthe appr opr i at e bas i s fordi s m i s s i ng a B i vens cl ai m i s fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ic h re lie f

c a n b e g ra n te d , n o t la c k o f s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . See P eopl es v. C CA D et . C trs. , 4 2 2 F . 3 d 1 0 9 0 , 1 0 9 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (P eop les III), v a c a tedin par ton othergr ounds by P eop l es v. C CA D et . C trs. , 449 F. 3d 1097, 1099 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (en b an c) (p er c u ri am ) (P eop les IV ) . T he pane l not ed that “j ur i s di ct i on i s notdefe at ed i f the compl ai ntcoul d have s t at ed a c aus e of a ct i on- 7-

forvi ol at i on of s t at e l aw . ” P eop les III, 422 F. 3d at1096 n. 3 ( ci t i ng B el lv. Hood , 327 U . S. 678, 680 ( 1946) ) . T he en ba nc courti n P eop les IV aff i r m ed thi s por t i on of P eop les III, and r ever s ed and r emanded P eop l es I fo r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . See P eop les IV, 4 4 9 F . 3 d at 10 9 9 . L ikew ise h ere , w e re v erse the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of the B i vens cl ai m agai ns tthe i ndi vi dual C C A empl oy ees forl ack of su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n a n d re m a n d th e m a tter fo r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s o n th is s i n g l e c l a i m. T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED in p a rt , REVERSED in part , and REM AND ED forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s or derand ju d g m e n t. M r. M e n tee r’s a p p lica tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris is GR ANTED , an d w e re m in d h im o f h is o b lig a tio n to m a k e p a rtial p a ym e n ts u n til th e e n tir e fe e h a s b e e n p a id , s ee 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (b).

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge