NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION Fi le Name: 08a 0398n.0 6 Fi led : Jul y

1, 2008 No. 07- 5234 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
DAVID W AYNE BAKER, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. MI CH AEL B . M UK

ASEY , etal ., Defendant s- Appel lee s. / On ap p e a l from the Uni ted S tates District C ourt for t he East ern District of Kent ucky

BEF OR E: RY

AN , SI LER , and C OLE, C ircui t J udg es. RYA N , C i rc u i t J u d g e . The pl ain ti ff , D av id W ay ne Bak er , a fed e ra l pr is on inmat e, al leg es that the d efendants, w ho i ncl ude hi s w arden, tw o pr is on mai l cl er ks , and “unkn own John Does, ” v iolate d his First and Fif th Amen dm ent rig hts by open ing his “ legal” mail outs ide hi s p re senc e and by refusin g him acces s t o s ex ual ly ex pli ci t mag az ine s. The dis tr ict c our

t di smi ss ed Bak er ’s co mplai nt be caus e al l of his clai ms w ere bar re d ei ther by the s tatut e of li mita ti ons or bec ause Bake r faile d to ex haustadmi nis trati v e remedie s. W e w il l re v erse and remand for further proceed ing s. I. In Dece mb er 200 1, Ba ker p lead ed guiltyto receivi ng and po ssessing child por nog ra phy , and the dis tr ict cour t sentenc ed him to 135 mont hs’ i mpri sonment

. In 20 05,
w hil e i ncarcerated at t he F ederal Cor re cti onal Ins ti tuti on i n As hla nd, K entuc ky , Ba ker fil ed
a ci v il ri g hts ac ti on ag ain st pr is on aut hor it ies , pursuantto the d oct ri ne anno unced i n Bi v ens(N o. 07 -5 234) -2
-

v . Six Unknown Name d Agents o f Federa l Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971 ). H is compl ain t al leg ed, i nter al ia, 1) thatpr is on offici als “ opened []and presu mably read and /or copi ed” his leg al mail , in v iol ati on of hi s F irst and F ifth A mendment r ig hts , and 2) that28 U. S.C . § 530C (b )( 6) ’s prohi bit ion ag ain st the B ureau of Pr is ons (B OP) ex pendi ng funds t o distribut e sexually

ex plic it m a t e ri als to prison ers in fede ral custod y v iolate d his First Amendment ri g hts

. The di st rict c our t s creened t he c omplai nt pu rs uant to 28 U .S.C . §§ 191 5(e)(2) and 191 5A an d dism issed it w ithou t preju d ic e for Bake r’s failure to exhaust admini strati v e remedie s, as re q uired by 42 U .S.C . § 1997e( a)

. On J une 6, 2006, Bak er rein it iat ed hi s c omplai nt, ra is ing ide nti cal is sues . Ag ain , t he dis tr ict c our

t s creened B aker ’s compl ain t and dis mis sed his cl aims as bar re d ei ther by the appl i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s o r fo r fa i l u re t o a d mi n i s t ra t i v e l y e x h a u s t t h e c l a i ms . The dis tr ict c our

t al so deter mined that Bake r faile d to sta te a cl aim upon w hic h reli ef coul d be g ra nted. II. W e rev iew

de n ov o a d is tr ict c our t’ s s creeni ng proces s u nder 28 U. S.C . §§ 1915( e) (2 ) and 191 5A. M cGo re v . W ri g g les w orth, 114 F .3d 6 01, 6 04 ( 6th C ir . 199 7)

. A dis tr ict c our

t may di smi ss a c ase a t a n y t im e if it deter mines the act ion i s fr iv olo us or mali ci o u s, o r it fail s t o s tate a c lai m upon w hic h reli ef can be g ra nted. 28 U. S.C . § 1915( e) (2 ). B e c a u s e t h e p la in t if

f ’s co m p la in twa s d is m is s e d s u a s p o n t e , t h e d e fe n d a n t s h a ve not fil ed any

oppos it ion papers i n the dist ri ct cour t or in thi s c our

t and di d notreq uestoral
a rg u me n t

. W e d e c i d e t h e c a s e o n t h e l o w e r c o u rtre c o rd a n d t h e p l a i n t i ff’ s ap p e l l a t e b r i e f. III .(N o. 07 -5 234) -3
-

F o r p u rp o s e s o f

d e t e rm in in g a p p li c a b le st a t u t e s o f li m it a t io n s in B ive n s a c t io n s , we app ly the m ost analogou s statu te of limitation s f rom th e stat e w here the events giv ing r ise to t he c lai m occ ur re d. Bake r’ s cl aims arose in Kent ucky , and therefore, a one- y ear st atute of l imi tati ons appl ies

. Ky . R ev . St at. Ann. § 413. 140( 1) (a ); M it chel l v . C hapman, 343 F .3d 811, 825 ( 6th C ir . 2003 ). The P ri son Lit ig ati on R eform Act of 1995 (P LRA ) re q uires pr is oners t o ex haustall av ail abl e pri son g ri ev ance procedu re s b efore fil ing su iti n federa l
cour t. 42 U .S.C . § 1997e( a) ; s ee al so W oodford v . N g o, 54 8 U .S. 81 ( 2006)

. Bake r arg ues that the d is tr ict c our t er re d w hen i t di smi ss ed hi s c lai ms t hat p ri son off ic ial s opened his “le g al” m ail outsi de his presenc e. Bake r filed hi s rein it iat ed c omplai nt on J une 6, 2006, all eg ing tw enty -four ins tanc es betw een Aug ust 20, 2003 t o F ebr uar y 21, 2006, w here pr is on of

fici als opened his mail f ro m v ar iou s cour ts, out of his prese nce. The dis tr ict c our

t c or re ctl y

dete rmi ned t h a t tw enty of the c lai ms, or

thos e oc cur ri ng betw een Aug ust 20, 2003 and Nov ember 29, 2004, w ere sta tutor il y bar re d. Baker’s “co nti nui ng
v iol ati ons” and eq uit abl e tol li ng arg uments doctr ine are unpersuasi v e. Mo re ov er , Ba ker
nev er rais ed th ese is sues in the distr ict cour t, and w e dec li ne to address them now . See Nob le v . C hr

y sl er M otors C or p., Jeep Di v ., 32 F .3d 9 97, 1 002 ( 6th C ir . 199 4)

. The d istri ct cour

t di smi ss ed th e remaini ng four leg al mail al leg ati ons for fail ure to
ex haust , bas ed on the factthat Baker prov ide d reco rd s of g ri ev ances fil ed on Nov ember 20, 2 003, but n one t hereafter. P ri o r t o t h e S u p re m e Co u rt ’s d e c i s io n in Jo n e s v. B o c k , 5 4 9 U. S

. 1 9 9 (2 0 0 7 ), we requ ir e d a p risoner to ple ad e x hau stion o n the face o f his comp laint in orde r to av oid dis mis sal

. See B ro w n v . T o o m b s, 1 39 F .3d 1 102, 1104 ( 6th C ir . 199 8) , abrog ated by J o n e s , 5 4 9 U. S

. 1 9 9

. No w, a ll ci rc u it s m u s tt r e a tf a i l u re t o e xh a u s ta s a n a f f ir m a t ive(N o. 07 -5 234) -4
-

def ense and “inma tes are notrequired to specially plea d or dem onst rate exhau stion in th eir
com p l a i n t s , ” J o n e s , 5 4 9 U

. S

. a t_ _ _ . T h e re fo re , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rte r re d b y d i s mi s s i ng Bake r’ s c omplai nt on procedu ra l g ro unds, bec ause, pursuantto Jones, Bak er need not all eg e ex haust ion i n hi s c omplai nt. Next, Baker argues the d istrict court erred in dism issing his claims regarding access to s ex ual ly

ex pli ci t mag az ine s. Bak er al leg ed two i nst ances i n w hic h he re q uest ed and
w as deni ed s ubsc ri pti ons to s ex ual ly ex pli ci t mag az ine s. The first ins tan ce occ ur re d on Ma rc h 15, 2004. The dis tr ict cour t cor re ctl y

dismi ss ed that all eg ati on as barred bythe oney ear st atute of

limi tati ons. The s econd i nst ance occ ur re d on Ma rc h 14, 2006. Ag ain , t he d is t ri c tco u rte rr e d in d is m is s in g t h is cl a im su a sp o n t e fo r fa il u re t o e xh a u s ta d m in is t ra t ive
re medies because Bak er w as not req uired to pl ead ex haust ion , and the g ov er nment w as not p ro v ide d an oppor

tuni ty to ass ert t he affirmat iv e defense.

IV. Al ter nati v ely , t he di str ict c our t di smi ss ed Bake r’ s c omplai nt un der § 19 15( e) (2 ), for failu re to sta te a cl aim upon w hic h rel ie f coul d be g ra nted. D is mis sal i s p ro per w hen,
acc epti ng al l w ell -p led factual al leg ati ons as tr ue, a nd cons tr uin g the compl ain t i n the l ig ht
mo st favorable to the cla ima nt, the cla ima nt can prove n o set of facts th at w ould entitle him to reli ef. H er ro n v . H ar ri son, 203 F. 3d 410, 414 (6 th C ir . 200 0)

. Bak e r a l l e g e s t h a tp r i s o n o ffi c i a l s o p e n e d a n d re a d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p ro t e cte d l eg al ma i l ou ts i de hi s pres en c e. BO P reg ul at i on s req ui re th at l eg al ma i l be “adequat ely ide nti fie d o n t he env elo pe, a nd th e frontof the e nv elo pe [] mar ked ‘S peci al Ma il —Op en onl y i n the presenc e of the inmat e.’ ” 28 C. F. R. § 540.18. But in Sal li er v. Brook s, 343 F .3d 868 ( 6th C ir . 200 3) , w e hel d “ that mail from a cour t c onst it utes ‘leg al mail ’ and c annot be(N o. 07 -5 234) -5
-

opened outs ide the presenc e of a pr is oner w ho has sp eci fical ly

req uest ed ot her

w is e.” I d. at 87 3, 87 7. Reg ardle ss of w hether w e wou ld u lt im atel y

co ncl ude t hat S all ier

di d not invalidate the B OP ma il regulation s, Bake r at least prese nte d a stat em entof an actio nab le cl aim pursuantto Fed. R . C iv . P. 8. Bake r’s rem aining claim is thatthe En sign A m e n d m ent , 28 U.S. C. § 530 C(b)(6),
w hic h s tates thatno federal funds “ maybe u sed to di strib u te o r m a ke av ail abl e to a pr is oner any co mmerc ial ly

publ is hed i nformati on or mater ial thati s s ex ual ly e xpl ic itor fe a tu re s n u d it y,” is un co n st it u ti o n a l. W h ile ou r sis te r cir cu it s h a ve u p h e ld th e En sign Amendment ag ain st si mil ar First Amendment chal len g es, se e, e. g ., Amatel v . R eno, 156 F. 3d 192 ( D. C. Cir . 1998), it is a matt er of firs t i mpres si on w it h thi s c our t and now

i s n ot t he ti me to deci de th e q uest ion

. Eve n i f we ul ti matel y

co ncur w it h our si ste r ci rc uit s, Bake r present ed a suffici ent s tatementof his cl aim to pe rmi t hi s l aw sui t t o proceed

. V. W e RE VER SE the deci sio n of the dis tr ict c our

t and REMA ND for fur ther proceed ing s.