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

### S e p t e m b e r8,2006 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 YU KI KUMURA,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. N o. 04- 1249 A. OSAGI E; VAI L; K. S AND ERS ; R. BA UE R; B. GR E E NWOOD; M I CH AEL V . PUG H, G. L. H E R S H B E R G E R ; K A T H L E E N M. HAWK, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. AP P EA L 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 COLORA DO (D . C . N O . 0 3 -B -23 6 (O E S )) Y u K i kum ur a fi l ed a br i ef, pr o s e. R ich a rd L . G a b rie l (B rittan yJ. N e lso n w ith h im o n th e b rie fs) o f H o lm e R o b e rts & O w en LL P, D enver , C O , forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l anti n Suppl ement al B r i efi ng. K athl een L. T orr es , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , ( J ohn W . Sut her s , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th heron t he A ns w erB r i ef, W i l l i am R . L eone, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th heron t he Suppl ement al A ns w erB r i ef) D enver , C O , for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B efo re KELLY , HENR Y , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2-

Y u K ik u m u ra , a fe d e ra l p riso n e r, b e c a m e se v e re lyill o n e a f ter n o o n in h is cel l . A l m os tei ghthour s pas s ed betw een the t i m e w hen he f i r s tr eport ed fe el i ng sick an d w h en h e w as finallytake n to a d o ctor; a d elaythat M r. K iku m u ra b e liev e s c a u se d h im se v e re inju rya n d a lm o st c o st h im h is life . H e filed su it i n fe d e ra l co u rt a lleg in g v a rio u s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t an d sta te to rt c laim s a g a in st a n u m b er o f d iffe ren t pri so n o ffici als an d the U n it ed S tat es. T h e d istri ct co u rt d ism issed the e n ti re a cti o n , cit ing , am o n g o ther rea so n s, M r. K iku m u ra’s fa il u re to e x h a u st a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies o r sta te a c laim u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t, and hi s fai l ur e t o fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of r evi ew forhi s m edi cal m al pr act i ce Fede r al T or tC l ai m s A ctcl ai m s . O n appea l , w e addr es s s ever al m at t er s r el at i ng t o the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ement , the pl eadi ng s t andar ds for an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , C ol or ado’ s r equi r ement thatl i t i gant s fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of r evi ew demonstr at i ng s ubs t ant i al j us t i fi cat i on for negl i gence cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof pr ofes s i onal m al fea s ance , and w hetherC ol or ado l aw r ecogni zes a ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tpr i s on guar ds forfai l i ng t o s um m on m e d ic a l p e rs o n n e l o n b e h a lf o f a s ic k in m a te .- 3-

I . BA CKGROUND A . T he E vent s Surround i ng M r. K i kum ura’ s I l l nes s on Jul y 5, 2002 Y u K i kum ur a, the pl ai nt i ff- appel l ant , i s a fe der al pr i s onerhous ed att he U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i ary , A dm i ni s tr at i ve M axi m um ( “A D X ”) , i n Fl or ence , C ol or ado. M r . K i kum ur a, a form erm emberof the now - defunc tt err or i s tgr oup cal l ed the J apane s e R ed A r m y , w as convi ct ed on N ovember28, 1988, on n u m ero u s co u n ts of

interst ate tran sp o rt ati o n o f e x p losive d ev ices a n d p assp o rt o ffe n s e s , a n d is c u rr e n tly se rv in g a 2 6 2 -m o n th s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. K i kum ura , 9 4 7 F .2 d 7 2 , 7 3

– 7 4 , 7 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); K i kum ur a v. Uni t ed Stat es , 978 F . S u p p . 5 6 3 , 5 6 9 (D .N .J . 1 9 9 7 ). On J u l y5 , 2 0 0 2 , M r . Ki k u mu r a b e c a me v i o l e n t l yi l l i n h i s p r i s o n c e l l . At appr oxi m at el y2: 30 p. m . he hi tthe pani c butt on i n hi s cel l t o cal l forhel p. T he offi cer s on dut ythataft ernoon, i dent i fi ed as V ai l and K . Sander s ( t ogether , t he “C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s ”) , arr i ved atM r . K i kum ur a’ s cel l at2: 50 p. m . and obs erved thathe “w as on hi s fl oorcompl ai ni ng of s ever e cr amps, pai n and v o m iti n g .” O rig in a l C o m p l. E x . B -1 . T h e C o rre c tio n a l O ffice rs p lac e d a c a ll t o th e p ri s o n in fir m a ry to n o tif yits s ta ff

o f M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o n d itio n . M r . A nthonyO s agi e, a phy s i ci an’ s as s i s t antatt he pr i s on i nfi r m ary , arr i ved atM r . K i kum ur a’ s cel l at3: 15 p. m . M r . O s agi e’ s not es i ndi cat e thathe obs erved M r . K i kum ur a “l y i ng on t he fl ooron hi s l efts i de [maki ng an] extr eme [and] d ra m a tic d isp lay of

p a in d istre ss .” O rig in a l C o m p l. E x . C -3 . M r. O sa g ieSee Part10. 1: Li f e- Thre at eni ng E l ectr ol yt e Abnorm al i t i es , 112 C i r culat i on 1 I V - 121, I V - 123 ( 2005) . T he s ym pt om s of hyponatr aemi c enc ephal opathyi ncl ude heada ches , naus ea, vom i t i ng, confus i on, s ei zur es , r es pi r at oryarr es t , and nonc a rd io g e n ic p u lm o n a ry o e d e m a . M ic h a e l L . M o ri tz & J . C a rl o s A yu s , The P a th op hy sio lo g

y a n dTre a tm e n t o

f H y p o n a tra e m ic E n c e

p h a lop a thy : A n U

p da te , 18 Nephr ol ogy D i al

ys is Trans

plantat i on 2 4 8 6 , 2 4 8 6 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . Th e s e s ymp t o ms “ar e l ar gel ycaus ed bybr ai n oedema fr om m ovementof w at eri nt o the br ai n. ” Id . (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 4- i ns truct ed M r . K i kum ur a t o s t and up and w al k w i th hi m and the C or r ect i onal O ffi cer s t o the i nfi r m ary , butM r . K i kum ur a “c l ai m [ed] thathe [c oul d not ] getup beca us e of c r amps i n [hi s ] back a nd l egs . ” Id . T he C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s dr agged M r. K i ku m ura t o the i nfirm arybyhis arm s. O nce theyr eac hed the i nfi r m ary , M r . O s agi e t ol d M r . K i kum ur a t o getup o n the e x am ination table. W h en M r. K iku m u ra sa id h e w as u n ab le t o stan d , M r. O s agi e ac cus ed hi m of bei ng “dr amat i c, exagge r at i ng. ” A m . C om pl . 5. A ft er w hatM r . K i kum ur a des cr i bes as a “pe r funct oryexam, ” M r . O s agi e conc l uded that M r. K i ku m ura w as sufferi ng from sym ptom s of l act ose i ntol erance, bu totherw i se e x h i b i t e d “ n o p a th o l o g y . ” Am . Co mp l . 5

– 6 ; Or i g i n a l Co mp l . E x . C- 4 . He p re sc rib e d M r. K ik u m u ra “ [ r]e a ss u ra n c e a n d o b se rv a tio n ,” g a v e h im a c e tam in o p h e n , an d e n c o u ra g e d h im to d rin k p len tyo f flu id s. O rig in a l C o m p l. E x . C -4 . T he medi cal r ecor ds i ndi cat e thatM r . K i kum ur a ac tual l yw as s uffe r i ng fr om hyponatr aemi c enc ephal opathy , a s er i ous m edi cal condi t i on caus ed byl ow s odi um l evel s i n the bl ood. M r . K i kum ur a had be en on a “ no s al t ” di etfort he 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 at2487. “A cut e ors ym pt om at i c hyponatr emi a ca n l ead t o s i gni fi cantr at es of m o rb id ity a n d m o rt a lity.” K ia n P e n g G o h , Ma n a g e m e n t o f H y p o n a tre m ia , 69 A m. Fam i l y Physi ci an 2 3 8 7 , 2 3 8 7 (2 0 0 4 ). See C h ri s to p h e r S .D . A lm o n d e t a l., H yponatr em i a A m ong R unners i n the 2 B os t on Mar athon , 352 New E ngl and J. Med. 1550, 1556 ( 2005) ( “Exces s i ve c o n su m p tio n o f

flu id s, a s e v id e n c e d b ysu b sta n tial w e ig h t g a in w h ile ru n n in g , is th e sin g le m o st im p o rta n t fa c to r a ss o c iate d w ith h yp o n a tre m ia[ ,] . . . w h ich , in ra re c a s e s , c a n b e fa ta l.” ).

- 5- pr evi ous thr ee mont hs . M em. i n Suppor tof O r i gi nal C om pl . 2. A nd, on J ul y2, 2002, thr ee da y s befor e he fel l i l l , M r . K i kum ur a w entfora t en- m i l e run i n the pr i s on y ar d dur i ng “extr eme hotw eather , pr obabl y100° F. , ” and “ dr ank [l ar ge amount s of] w at erand s w eat ed a l otdur i ng and af t erthe run[] . ” Id . M r. K i kum ur a cl ai m s thathi s l ow s odi um i nt ake a nd exce s s i ve cons um pt i on of fl ui ds w er e l i kel y r el at ed t o hi s devel opm ent of hyponatr emi a. Id . a t 3 . 2 “Sym pt om at i c hyponatr emi a . . . i s a medi cal emer gency , ” and “ [o] nce s i gns of enc ephal opathyar e i dent i fi ed, pr om ptt r eatm enti s r equi r ed i n a m o n ito re d s e ttin g .” M ic h a e l L . M o ri tz & J . C a rl o s A yu s , The P athophys i ol ogy a n dTre a tm e n t o

f H y p o n a tra e m ic E n c e

p h a lop a thy : A n U

p da te , 18 Nephr ol ogy D i al ys is Trans

plantat i on 2 4 8 6 , 2 4 8 9 (2 0 0 3 ). M r. O sa g ie a p p a re n tlyfa iled to r e c o g n i z e t h a tM r . Ki k u mu r a wa s s u ffe r i n g f r o m h yp o n a tr e mi a , a n d a t3 : 3 0 p . m. h e ins tru cted the C o rrecti o n al O fficers to retu rn M r. K iku m u ra to h is cell . M r. O s agi e’ s i ns truct i ons t o M r . K i kum ur a t o dr i nk pl entyof fl ui ds w as pr eci s el yt he- 6-

w ro n g a d v ice fo r a p a tien t su ffe rin g f ro m h yp o n a tre m ia, a n d e x a c e rb a ted h is condi t i on. A ft ert heydr agged hi m back t o hi s cel l , the C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s had t o l ay M r . Ki k u mu r a o n h i s b e d “ b e c a u s e th e s e v e r e p a i n s a n d c r a mp s h a d [ l e f th i m] unabl e t o s t and up orw al k. ” A m . C om pl . 6. M r . K i kum ur a cl ai m s thats oon aft er he w as r eturned t o hi s cel l hi s condi t i on “r api dl ydet er i or at ed, ” and he began v o m itin g s e v e re ly. Id . at6. H e cr aw l ed outof hi s bed and, “[c ] ol l aps i ng bythe to ilet,” h e c o n tin u a llya ttem p ted to d rin k w a ter b u t w o u ld “ th ro w it u p v io len tly ar ound t he fl oor . ” Id . H e cl ai m s thathi s “untr eat ed extr eme cr amps and pa i ns s pr ead thr oughoutt he w hol e of [ hi s ] bodyas i f i m pos i ng . . . a t or tur e. ” Id . T he pai n gave “ r i s e t o ps y chol ogi cal angui s h and horr orof dea th, as [he] w as w r i thi ng and thr as hi ng i n the w as t e [for ] hour [s ] , cea s el es s l ys cr eami ng ‘ hel p m e, ’ fal l i ng i nto a con fusi on w hich w as caused b ythe il l ness that w as al so dam aging [h i s] br ai n. ” Id . D u e to th e sw ell ing in h is brain c au sed b ythe h yp o n atrem ia, M r. K iku m u ra l o s ta l l me mo r yo f

t h e r e ma i n i n g e v e n t s o f J u l y5 , 2 0 0 2 b e g i n n i n g s o me t i me b e tw e e n 4 :0 0 p .m . an d 4 :3 0 p .m . B a se d o n th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd p ro v id e d to M r . K i kum ur a af

t erthe i nci dent , how ever , i tappea r s thatM r . O s agi e di d nott ake M r . K i kum ur a t o the i nfi r m aryagai n unt i l s om et i m e betw een 7: 35 p. m . and 8: 15T h e C o rrecti o n al O fficer’s t im e log fo r July5 , 2 0 0 2 ind icates tha t M r. 3 K i kum ur a w as t aken t o t he i nfi r m aryat7: 35 p. m . T he B P- 9 A dm i ni s tr at i ve R es pons e t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s form al gr i evanc e s t at es t hatM r . O s agi e w as cal l ed to h is c e ll a g a in a t 8 :1 5 p .m .

- 7- p .m . B yth a t ti m e M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o n d iti o n h a d d e ter io ra ted e v e n f u rth e r. H is 3 m edi cal r ecor ds i ndi cat e thathe “appear ed t o be s ei zi ng and had s om e bl ood comi ng fr om [hi s ] m outh. ” O r i gi nal C om pl . E x. C - 5. H e w as al s o “combat i ve and w oul d notoffe r[an] expl anat i on as t o w hatand w her e he hurt s . ” Id . M r. O s agi e s t art ed pr ovi di ng bas i c tr eatm entt o M r . K i kum ur a ar ound 8: 15 p. m . , but hi s condi t i on onl yw or s ened. A t9: 25 p. m . M r . O s agi e t el ephoned the phy s i ci an o n -c a ll, D r. L e yb a , a n d in fo rm e d h im o f M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o n d itio n . D r. L eyb a a rri v ed at th e p ri so n infirm aryat 10 :20 p . m . A cc o rdin g to D r. L eyba’ s not es , w hen he a r r i ved M r . K i kum ur a w as “i n extr emi s , ” meani ng att he poi ntof dea th. O r i gi nal C om pl . E x. C - 26. H e w as t hr as hi ng ar ound, s ei zi ng, and gas pi ng forai r . D r . L eyba di agnos ed hi m w i th hyponatr aemi c enc ephal opathy a n d a c u te p u lm o n a rye d e m a . A f ter d e ter m in in g th a t M r. K ik u m u ra “ c o u ld p o s s ib ly d e m is e if

p la c e d o n a fla t [ a ]m b u la n c e g u rn e y ” a n d ta k e n to “ P u e b lo ,” the nea rbyhos pi t al , D r . L eyba bega n tr eat i ng M r . K i kum ur a att he i nfi r m ary , and sta y e d w ith h im u n til 4 :3 0 a .m . O rig in a l C o m p l. E x . C -8 , C -2 7 . A c c o rd in g to M r . K i kum ur a, bythe t i m e he f i nal l yr ece i ved tr eatm entfr om D r . L eyba, he w as s uffe r i ng fr om “hyponatr emi c enc ephal opathy , acut e pul m onaryedema and con gest i ve h eartfai l ure, [w hich w ere] severel ydam aging [h i s] i nternal or gan s,M r . K i kum ur a’ s m edi cal r ecor ds fr om J ul y5, 2002 ar e l ar gel ycons i s t ent 4 w ith h is d e s c ri p tio n o f h is inju ri e s .

- 8- s u c h a s [ h i s ] b r a i n , h e a r t , l u n g s , l i v e r , k i d n e y s , s t o ma c h , t o n g u e a n d mo u th . ” Am. C om pl . 7. 4 M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o n d iti o n sta b ili z e d b ym o rn in g , alth o u g h h e d id n o t re g a in cons ci ous nes s foranother24 hour s , and w as even then “c onfus ed” a nd

“ d istre ss [ e d ].” O rig in a l C o m p l. E x . C -1 4 . T h e m e d ica l sta ff re tu rn e d h im to h is c e l l o n J u l y9 , 2 0 0 2 , fo u rd a y s a f t e rt h e o n s e to f

h i s i l l n e s s . M r . Ki k u mu r a c l a i ms thathi s “[p] hy s i cal w eakne s s , fee l i ng s i ck, naus ea, pai ns i n [hi s ] s t om ach, l egs and bac k, l i m bs brui s i ng and thei rpai ns , emot i onal anxi etyand di s tr es s , part i al m emoryel aps i ng, and di ffi cul tyi n i nt el l i gentw or ks cont i nued t i l l ar ound [the] end of J ul y . ” Id . M o re o v e r, h e a ss e rts th a t “m ild p h y sic a l p ro b lem [ s] a s ta n g ib le aft er effect s of the di s eas e and ment al anxi ety , depr es s i on, and s om e di ffi cul tyfor i nt el l i gentw or ks fur therl as t ed unt i l ar ound [the] end of Sept emberi n 2002. ” Id . B . M r. K i kum ura’ s P urs ui t of A dm i ni s t rat i ve R em edi es D ur i ng hi s r ecove r y , M r . K i kum ur a ca m e t o bel i eve thatt he medi cal treatm ent he r ecei ved on Jul y5, 20 02 w as i nad equ at e. S i nce M r. K i ku m ura l ost al l m emoryof the eve nt s on J ul y5, 2002 s om et i m e betw een 4: 00 p. m . and 4: 30 p .m ., h o w e v e r, h e h a s n o d ire c t k n o w led g e o f w h a t ca u se d th e a lleg e d d e lay i n h is car e af t ert hatt i m e. N onethel es s , he w as abl e t o s peak w i th O ffi cerSander s , one- 9-

of the corr ect i onal offi cer s guar di ng hi s cel l w hen he fel l i l l , and t o as k hi m w hat happene d aft erhe l os tcons ci ous nes s . A ccor di ng t o M r . K i kum ur a, O ffi cer Sander s t ol d hi m t hatboth he and O ffi cerV ai l , the othercorr ect i onal offi cer g u ard ing h is cell , rea li ze d that M r. K iku m u ra req u ir ed ad d it ion al m ed ical care s oon aft ert heyfi r s tr eturned hi m t o hi s cel l at3: 30 p. m . T heyal l egedl ycal l ed the in firm aryag ain a t 4:00 p . m . to info rm M r. O sag ie of M r. K iku m u ra’s wo r s e n i n g c o n d i t i o n . M r . Os a g i e d i d n o ta rr i v e a tth e c e l l u n t i l s o me t i me b e tw e e n 5 :0 0 p .m . an d 5 :3 0 p .m . O n c e h e a rriv e d , M r. O sa g ie s u p p o se d ly obs erved M r . K i kum ur a’ s det er i or at i ng s t at e of he al th, and t ol d the C or r ect i onal O ffice rs th a t h e w o u ld tak e M r. K ik u m u ra to th e in firm a ry . H e th e n lef t th e u n it to re triev e a w h e e l ch a ir fo r M r. K ik u m u ra . A lth o u g h M r. O sa g ie s a id h e w o u ld be bac k s hor t l y , he al l egedl ydi d notr eturn t o the ce l l t o t ake M r . K i kum ur a t o t he i n fi r ma ryu n t i l 7 : 3 5 p . m. O n A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , M r. K ik u m u ra filed a n in fo rm a l re so lu tio n fo rm w ith A D X p r i s o n . H e a s s e r t e d th a t“ th e p r i s o n o ffi c i a l h a n d l e d [ h i s ] c a s e w r o n g f u l l y” and as ked the pr i s on author i t i es “t o i nves t i gat e the ca s e” a nd di s ci pl i ne the “per s on w ho vi ol at ed [hi s ] cons t i tut i onal r i ght s s o thatthe s ame w r ong- doi ng [w i l l not ] happen a gai n i n thi s pr i s on. ” A m . C om pl . E x. A - 1. T he pr i s on r es ponded t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s i nform al gr i evanc e on A ugus t19, 2002. T he r es pons e s t at ed thata C orr ect i onal C ouns el orhad r evi ew ed the ca s e, and- 10-

det erm i ned thathe w as “tr eat ed bym edi cal s t aff and w i l l cont i nue t o be tr eat ed acc or di ng t o [hi s ] m edi cal needs . ” Id . M r. K ik u m u ra filed a fo rm a l ad m in istra tiv e re m e d yre q u e st (a B P -9 ) w ith the W ar den of A D X on A ugus t20, 2002. I n hi s B P- 9, M r . K i kum ur a compl ai ned thatal though he fi r s thi tthe pani c butt on i n hi s cel l at2: 30 p. m . , he di d not r ece i ve tr eatm entfr om a doct orunt i l 10: 30 p. m . , and cl ai m ed thathe “s uffe r ed w ith a d e a d ly co n s e q u e n c e ” a s a re s u lt o f th is d e la y . Id . , E x. A - 2. H e s ai d that he b el i eved “t he p ri son o ffi ci al s’ delay ed respon se . . . viol at [ed] [his ] cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ” butexpl ai ned thathe has “bee n unabl e t o getr ecor ds w hi ch s how a ful l vi ew on w hathappene d [t o hi m ] . ” Id . , E x. A - 3. N onethel es s , he re c o u n ted w h a t O ffice r S a n d e rs a lleg e d lyto ld h im re g a rd in g th e d e lay i n h is tr eatm ent , w hi ch w as t hatt he C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s cal l ed the i nfi r m aryagai n at 4 :0 0 p .m . to s u m m o n m e d ica l as sis tan c e , b u t M r. O sa g ie d id n o t ar riv e a t th e c e ll u n til 5 :3 0 p .m ., a n d d id n o t tak e M r. K ik u m u ra b a c k to th e in firm a rya g a in u n til 7 : 3 5 p . m. I n hi s B P- 9, M r . K i kum ur a as ked the W ar den “t o i nves t i gat e the ca s e and l et[hi m ] know . . . w hetherornotthe [Corr ect i onal ] O ffi cer s ’ al l egat i on s t at ed above i s corr ect . ” Id . H e a lso a sk e d fo r “ th e c o n ten t o f th e U n it L o g in re g a rd to the r es pons e of the pr i s on offi ci al s [t o hi s ] s i cknes s betw een 2: 30 p. m . [and] 9: 00 p. m . [on] J ul y05. ” Id . T he r el i ef s oughtbyM r . K i kum ur a w as forthe W ar den “t o t ake ne ces s aryact i on[, ] i ncl udi ng t o deci pl i ne [s i c] i nvol ved per s on[s ] w ho- 11-

vi ol at ed [hi s ] cons t i tut i onal r i ght s acc or di ng t o the B O P pol i cyori ntr oduce ne w pol i cys o t hatt he s ame w r ong- doi ng w on’ thappen a gai n ( l etm e know i f y ou found thei rconductdi d notvi ol at e the exi s t i ng pol i cy ) . ” Id . H e al s o r eques t ed “l egal r el i ef w hi ch i s appr opr i at e underthe U S l aw and C ons t i tut i on as w el l as nece s s arym edi cal car e. ” Id . T he W ar den i s s ued a r es pons e t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s B P- 9 on Sept ember11, 2002. H e s t at ed thata “r evi ew of [the B P- 9] w as per form ed, ” and i tfound the fo llo w in g : [a] M i d- L evel Pr ovi dercame t o y ourcel l and had y ou t aken t o the exami nat i on r oom on the uni t . H e pr ovi ded y ou w i th an exa m i nat i on atthatt i m e[, ] . . . advi s ed y ou t o cont i nue t aki ng y ourm edi cat i on and t o dr i nk fl ui ds [, and] . . . had y ou r etur ned t o y ourcel l . A r ound 8 :1 5 p .m . tha t ev e n in g , the M id -L e v e l P ro v id e r w a s a g a in c a lled to y ouruni t . A ft era br i ef a s s es s m ent , he di r ect ed s t aff t o tr ans por ty ou t o the H eal th Ser vi ces U ni tw her e he be gan aggr es s i vel ytr eat i ng y ou r s ym ptom s. Id . , E x. A - 4. T he W ar den cont i nued: “[t ] he C l i ni cal D i r ect oradvi s es thatthe m edi cal tr eatm enty ou r ece i ved w as t i m el yand appr opr i at e. St aff w er e not del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o y ourm edi cal needs . . . . [T]he m edi cal car e pr ovi ded, and curr ent l ybei ng pr ovi ded t o y ou i s comm ens ur at e w i th comm uni tys t andar ds . ” Id . M r . K i kum ur a fi l ed an appeal of the W ar den’ s deci s i on w i th the R egi onal D i r ect or( a B P- 10) on Sept ember19, 2002. H e cl ai m ed thatthe W ar den w rongf ull ycon cl ud ed thatt he “u nco nst i tuti on al con du ctbythe o ffi ci al s [w as]- 12-

‘t im elyan d ap p rop ri ate’ an d ‘i s co m m en su rate w ith co m m u n itystan d ard [s]’ underthe pol i cy , cus t om and pr act i ce of thi s pr i s on. ” Id . , E x . A -5. M r. K ik u m u ra th e n re a ss e rte d h is c laim th a t th e p riso n o fficia ls h a d v io late d h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . H e al s o s t at ed thati f the W ar den’ s r es pons e t o hi s B P- 9 w as corr ect , then “the pol i cy , cus t om oract i on bythos e w ho r epr es entoffi ci al pol i cy i n th i s p r i s o n a r e o f

i n a c t i o n w h i c h a m o u n t [ s ] t o fa i l u r e t o p r o t e c t[ m y] con st i tuti on al ri gh t s und er the 8 th A m end m ent, con st i tuti ng sy st em at i c and gross defi ci enci es i n tr ai ni ng and di s i pl i n [s i c] of m edi cal s t aff. ” Id . M r. K iku m u ra there fo re req u ested that the R eg ion al D ir ec tor “c h an g e the p o li cyo n m ed ical care

. . . , appl y [] di s ci pl i ne [t o] thos e w ho vi ol at ed mycons t i tut i onal r i ght s , [and] pr ovi d[e] . . . l egal r el i ef a s w el l as nece s s arym edi cal car e. ” Id . H e al s o as ked forfur ther“i nves t i gat i on [i nt o] the ca s e, ” a c opyof the U ni tL og, and for i nform at i on fr om the pr i s on about“w hathappene d [t o hi m on] 7/ 5/ 02. ” Id . T he R egi onal D i r ect ordeni ed M r . K i kum ur a’ s B P- 10 appea l on O ct ober15, 2002. H e not ed thatM r . K i kum ur a cl ai m ed thathe “di d notr ece i ve pr om ptand effect i ve medi cal tr eatm entforfi ve hour s w hen [he ] w as i l l , ” and thathe “r eques t [s ] thatpol i cyconce r ni ng m edi cal car e be c hanged, and thatthos e w ho vi ol at ed [hi s ] cons t i tut i onal r i ght s be di s ci pl i ned. ” Id . , E x. A - 6. T he l et t erof den i al st at ed thatthe R egional D i rect or’ s O ffi ce had “revi ew ed [M r. K i ku m ura’ s] in stitu tio n lev e l co m p lain t,” a n d fo u n d th a t “[ t]h e W a rd e n ’s r e sp o n se a d e q u a tely addr es s es [hi s ] cl ai m . ” Id . “Y ou r ece i ved ade quat e medi cal tr eatm ent , ” the- 13-

R egi onal D i r ect orw r ot e, “and ther e i s no evi dence thats t aff vi ol at ed y our cons t i tut i onal r i ght s bydeny i ng y ou s uch tr eatm ent . ” Id . C ons equent l y , the R egi onal D i r ect ordet erm i ned thatM r . K i kum ur a’ s “r eques tt o have s t aff di s ci pl i ned [w as ] notw arr ant ed. ” Id . M r . K i kum ur a fi l ed an appeal of the R egi onal D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on ( a B P- 11) on O ct ober31, 2002. H e expl ai ned i n hi s B P- 11 thathe “w as w i thouta pr om pt a n d e ffe c t i v e tr e a t me n tf r o m 2 : 3 0 p . m. wh e n [ h e h i t ] a p a n i c b u t t o n t o 1 0 : 2 0 p . m. w h e n th e d o c to r c a m e ,” a n d a lleg e d th a t h is “ d e a d lyd ise a se w a s c a u se d n o t o n ly by[M r . O s agi e’ s ] del ay i ng r es pons e but[al s o by ] hi s fat al pr es cr i pt i on. ” Id . , E x. A - 7. H e al s o r eas s ert ed the r eques t s forr el i ef f r om hi s B P- 9, i ncl udi ng a “c hange [t o] the p oli cyon m edical care, ” “dis ci pli ne [for] tho se w ho viol at ed [h i s] cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ” “l egal r el i ef, ” “c ont i nui ng nece s s arym edi cal car e, ” an in v e s tig a tio n in to th e c a s e , a n d c o p ie s o f th e d o c u m e n ts h e h a d re q u e s te d . Id . On N o v em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , the A d m inistrator o f N ati o n al Inm ate A p p ea ls de n ied M r. K i kum ur a’ s B P- 11. T he A dm i ni s tr at orfound “no i ndi cat i on thatm edi cal car e and tr eatm entw as del ay ed” a nd t hatM r . K i kum ur a “r ece i ved tr eatm enti n acc or dance w i th the s ym pt om s [he] pr es ent ed t o m edi cal s t aff. ” Id ., E x . A -8 . I n addi t i on t o pur s ui ng hi s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m thr ough the i nm at egr i evanc e pr oces s , M r . K i kum ur a al s o fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve cl ai m underthe F e d e r a l T o r tCl a i ms Ac t( F T CA ) wi th th e F e d e r a l Bu r e a u o f P r i s o n s ( BO P ) . He fi l ed hi s fi r s tFT C A admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m on Sept ember17, 2002, al l egi ng that- 14-

M r . O s agi e’ s negl i gence i n tr eat i ng hi m caus ed s ever e i nj ur i es . O n D ece m ber20, 2 0 0 2 , h e filed a su p p lem e n tal a d m in istra tiv e c laim a ss e rtin g th a t O ffice rs V a il and Sander s w er e al s o negl i gent . T he B O P deni ed hi s cl ai m on M ar ch 7, 2003, concl udi ng thatM r . K i kum ur a di d not“s uffe r [] anyper s onal i nj uryas a r es ul tof the negl i gentact s orom i s s i ons of B ur eau of Pr i s ons empl oy ees act i ng w i thi n the s c o p e o f th e ire m p lo ym e n t.” A m . C o m p l. E x . A -9 . C . P roce edi ngs i n D i s t ri ct C ourt M r . K i kum ur a, act i ng pr o s e, fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado on February7, 2003, as s er t i ng var i ous caus es o f a c tio n u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. T h e d istric t co u rt re fe rre d th e law su it t o a m a g is tr a te ju d g e . M r. K ik u m u ra a m e n d e d h is c o m p la in t o n M a y2 8 , 2 0 0 3 . In hi s am end ed co m plai nt, M r. K i ku m ura ass ert ed fo urt een clai m s agai nst eigh t defen d an ts. T h e n am ed d efen d an ts w ere A n tho n yO sag ie, the p h y sici an ’s a s s i s t a n twh o tr e a t e d M r . Ki k u mu r a ; Offi c e r s Va i l a n d S a n d e r s , t h e t wo c o rre c tio n a l o ffice rs g u a rd in g h is c e ll u n it w h e n h e fe ll i ll; R . B a u e r, a C a p tain in the U ni t ed St at es Publ i c H eal th Ser vi ce a nd the H eal th Ser vi ces A dm i ni s tr at orat A D X ; B . G r eenw ood, al s o a C apt ai n i n the U ni t ed St at es Publ i c H eal th Ser vi ce and the A s s i s t antH eal th Ser vi ces A dm i ni s tr at oratA D X ; M . V . Pugh, t he W ar den of A D X ; J . B urr el l , the A s s oci at e W ar den of A D X ; and the U ni t ed St at es o f A m e ri c a .- 15-

T he fi r s ts i x cl ai m s as s erta r i ghtof r ecove ryagai ns tthe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s pur s uantt o B i vens v. Six Unknow n Nam ed Agents of Fed. B ur eau of Nar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 ( 1971) , forvi ol at i ons of the Ei ghth A m endment g u a ra n tee a g a in st c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. T h e se six c laim s fo r d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e a re , res p e c tiv e ly : (1 ) M r. O sa g ie p ro v id e d in a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re to M r. K ik u m u ra w h e n h e first a rriv e d a t th e in firm a ry ; (2 ) M r. O sa g ie fa iled to a llev iate M r. K ik u m u ra ’s p a in a n d su ffe rin g b e fo re se n d in g h im b a c k to h is c e ll; (3) M r. O sag ie fa il ed to f u lfi ll h is ga teke ep er ro le byw ait ing alm o st si x h o u rs b e fo re c a lli n g th e p riso n d o c to r; (4 ) M r. O sa g ie d e lib e ra telylef t M r. K ik u m u ra in hi s cel l foratl eas ttw o hour s aft erl earni ng of hi s acut e medi cal condi t i on; ( 5) O ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s knew thatM r . K i kum ur a r equi r ed s er i ous m edi cal att en ti o n so o n af

ter th eyreturn ed h im to h is cell , b u t delay ed ca ll ing the in firm ary forup t o fourhour s ; and ( 6) C apt ai n B auer , C apt ai n G r eenw ood, W ar den Pugh, a n d A ss ista n t W a rd e n B u rre ll (tog e th e r th e “ S u p e rv iso ryD e fe n d a n ts” ) fa iled to p ro v id e a d e q u a te tra in in g a n d d isc ip lin e to th e ir sta ff, w h ich “ w e re c lo se ly re la te d ” to a n d u ltim a te ly ca u s e d M r. K ik u m u ra ’s inju ri e s . A m . C o m p l. 6

– 1 4 . M r. K i ku m ura’ s r em ai ning ei gh tcl ai m s ass erta ri gh tof recov eryagainst the U ni t ed St at es undert he FT C A forvar i ous s t at e- l aw t or t s al l egedl ycomm i t t ed bythe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s . T he s eventh thr ough the fourt eenth cl ai m s ar e, re sp e c tiv e ly : (7 ) M r. O sa g ie n e g lig e n tlyfa iled to tak e re a so n a b le c a re in pr ovi di ng M r . K i kum ur a medi cal car e; ( 8) M r . O s agi e negl i gent l yfai l ed t o det ect- 16-

o r d iag n o se M r. K ik u m u ra ’s e m e rg e n c ym e d ica l co n d iti o n ; (9 ) M r. O sa g ie negl i gent l yfai l ed t o r efe rM r . K i kum ur a’ s cas e t o the pr i s on doct orunt i l 9: 25 p .m .; (1 0 ) M r. O sa g ie n e g lig e n tlym isre p re se n ted M r. K ik u m u ra ’s s tate o f h e a lth to th e C o rre c tio n a l O ffice rs w h e n h e a c c u se d h im o f m a lin g e rin g ; (1 1 ) M r. O sa g ie en g ag ed in ex tr em e a n d o u tr ag eo u s co n d u ct; (12 ) O fficers V ail an d S an d ers n eg li g en tl yd elay ed ca ll ing the in firm arya se co n d ti m e a fter M r. K iku m u ra’s condi t i on det er i or at ed; ( 13) O ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s engage d i n extr eme and o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t; an d (1 4 ) th e S u p e rv iso ryD e fe n d a n ts n e g lig e n tlyfa iled to adequa t el ytr ai n and di s ci pl i ne the A D X s t aff, and ar e l i abl e underr es pondeat s u p e ri o r. O n A ug ust18 , 20 03 , the d efen dan t s fi l ed a co nsoli dated m oti on t o d i sm i ss the c o m p lai n t pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(1 ) an d (6), asse rt ing v ariou s rea so n s fo r th e d ism issal of all fo u rt ee n o f M r. K iku m u ra’s cl ai m s . W i th r es pectt o the B i vens cl ai m s , the D efe ndant s ar gued, among ot her th in g s, th a t M r. K ik u m u ra h a d fa iled to sta te a c laim u n d e r th e E ig h th A m end m ent, and t hat because he “did not i den t i fyD efen dan t s V ai l , S and ers , Pugh, B urr el l , B auerorG r eenw ood i n anyof the gr i evanc es he fi l ed, ” he “ fai l ed to e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies a g a in st th e se D e fe n d a n ts.” M o t. t o D ism iss 4. T h eyalso arg u ed that M r. K iku m u ra’s F T C A claim s b ase d o n M r. O s agi e’ s al l eged mal fea s ance s houl d be di s m i s s ed bec aus e he fai l ed t o fi l e a- 17-

cert i fi cat e of r evi ew demonstr at i ng “s ubs t ant i al j us t i fi cat i on” forthe cl ai m s , as re q u ir e d b yC o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 1 3 -2 0 -6 0 2 . In re sp o n se to th e D e fe n d a n ts’ a lleg a tio n th a t h e fa iled to e x h a u st h is adm i nis trat i ve rem edies on his B i vens cl ai m s , M r . K i kum ur a s ubm i t t ed a r enew ed B P- 9 gr i evanc e form t o the W ar den. T hi s new B P- 9, fi l ed on A ugus t27, 2003, listed th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts b yn a m e a n d sp e c ifica llym e n tio n e d h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n tc l a i m s . T h e W a r d e n r ej e c t e d h i s r e n e w e d B P - 9 fi l i n g a s u n t i m e l y, n o tin g th a t B P -9 s m u s t b e re c e iv e d w ith in 2 0 d a y s o f th e e v e n t c o m p la in e d a b o u t. M r. K iku m u ra a p p ea led th e d en ial b ym ea n s o f a B P -10 to the R eg ion al D ir ec tor, w h ich w a s rejec ted , an d th e n filed a B P -1 1 a d d re ss e d to th e G e n e ra l C o u n se l, w h ich w as a lso rejec ted. A fter rec eivin g the final rejecti o n , M r. K iku m u ra s u b m itte d c o p ie s o f

a ll o f th e s e d o c u m e n ts to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e . M r . K i kum ur a fi l ed hi s r es pons e t o the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s on S eptem ber 24, 2003 . A l tho ug h h e res po nd ed to m ostof the D efen dan t s’ a rg u m e n ts, M r. K ik u m u ra a sk e d th e C o u rt fo r a n e x ten sio n o n th e d e a d lin e to file a ce r t i fi cat e of r evi ew , expl ai ni ng thathe di d notknow of the r equi r ementunt i l he re a d th e m o tio n to d ism iss . H e a lso a sk e d th e m a g istra te ju d g e to a p p o in t h im couns el , ar gui ng thathe nee ded an a t t or neyt o m ake “ cont actw i th a l i cens ed phy s i ci an w ho coul d pr ovi de [hi m ] a C er t i fi cat e of Revi ew , ” and thatthe l egal i s s ues i nvol ved i n the D efe ndant s ’ admi ni s tr at i ve- exhaus t i on ar gum entw er e t oo- 18-

“ n o v e l an d c o m p lex ” fo r a p ro se lit ig a n t to p ro p e rlya d d re ss . R e sp . to M o t. t o D is m is s 8 , 2 4 . A w eek l at er , M r . K i kum ur a fi l ed a mot i on fora t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng o rde r (“T R O ”) to e njoin B O P o ffici als fro m d estroy ing ev iden ce . In p arti cu lar, he as ked the magi s tr at e j udge t o enj oi n the des truct i on of admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc es fi l ed byotheri nm at es thatm i ghthel p s how thatthe A D X empl oy ees rec eive d inad eq u ate trai n ing . A d d it ion all y , o n O ctob er 1 7 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. K iku m u ra fi l ed anotherm ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a c er t i fi cat e of r evi ew and for a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l. O n M ar ch 24, 2004, t he magi s tr at e j udge ent er ed an or derr ecomm endi ng thatthe di s tr i ctcourtgr antt he D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and denyal l other pendi ng m ot i ons as m oot . T he magi s tr at e j udge’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on the fol l ow i ng fi ndi ngs : ( 1) M r . K i kum ur a fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve rem edies for hi s B i vens c l a i m a g a i n s tth e S u p e r v i s o ryDe fe n d a n t s ; ( 2 ) th e F TCA pr ovi des C apt ai n B auerand C apt ai n G r eenw ood abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om the B i vens cl ai m beca us e theyar e U ni t ed St at es Publ i c H eal th Ser vi ce offi cer s ; ( 3) th e fa c ts a lleg e d in th e c o m p lain t ar e in su fficie n t to sta te a c laim u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t ag a in st a n yo f th e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts; (4 ) th e D e fe n d a n ts a re a ll ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty ; ( 5) M r . K i kum ur a fa i l ed t o s ubm i ta ce r t i fi cat e of rev iew , as re q u ir ed u n d er C o lorad o law , fo r his F T C A claim s b ase d u p o n M r. O s agi e’ s al l egedl ynegl i gentand outr ageous conduct ; ( 6) the “ne gl i gent- 19-

m i s r epr es ent at i on” cl ai m i s fr i vol ous and unexha us t ed; ( 7) the U ni t ed St at es has notw ai ved s over ei gn i m m uni tyoverM r . K i kum ur a’ s cl ai m s bas ed on the C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s ’ “fa i l ur e t o r efe rorcons ul t ” and “ outr ageous conduct , ” or o v er h is cl aim b ase d o n resp o n d ea t sup erior. M r. K iku m u ra fil ed h is objecti o n s to the m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i on on A pr i l 26, 2004, di s put i ng al l of the gr ounds gi ven bythe m agi s tr at e j udge fordi s m i s s i ng hi s four t een c l ai m s . H e al s o r enew ed hi s m ot i ons fora TR O , appoi nt m entof couns el , and an e xt ens i on of t i m e forfi l i ng a ce rt ifi ca te of

rev iew . O bjecti o n s to M ag . R ec . 2 5 . A d d it ion all y , M r. K iku m u ra ar gued thatunl es s hi s r eques tforcouns el and an e xt ens i on of t i m e w er e gr ant ed, the C ert i fi cat e of Revi ew r equi r ementi m pos ed underC ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 20- 6 0 2 w o u ld b e u n c o n s titu tio n a l a s a p p lie d to h im . O n J une 16, 2004, t he di s tr i ctcourti s s ued an or deradopt i ng al l of the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons w i th r es pectt o the fourt een c l ai m s as s er t ed in M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o m p lain t, an d th e re fo re d ism iss e d th e e n tire a c tio n w ith prej ud i ce. T he d i stri ctcou rtal so den i ed all of M r. K i ku m ura’ s pend i ng m oti on s, b u t d id s o o n th e irm e ri ts ra th e r t h a n fo r m o o tn e s s . M r. K ik u m u ra file d a n o tic e o f a p p e a l o n J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 .- 20-

D . T he A ppeal M r . K i kum ur a ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s amended compl ai ntw as err oneous w i th r es pectt o al l four t een of hi s cl ai m s . H e al s o as ks thi s C our tt o r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s m ot i ons for appoi nt m entof couns el , an ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a Cer t i fi cat e of Revi ew , and a T R O pr ohi bi t i ng the B O P fr om des tr oy i ng evi dence . H e al s o s ubm i t t ed a mot i on re q u e s tin g th e a p p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l fo r t h is a p p e a l. In th e ir A n sw e r B rie f, the D e fe n d a n ts ra ise tw o a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l in addi t i on t o r es pondi ng t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s var i ous cont ent i ons . Fi r s t , t heyar gue th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fin d in g th a t M r. K ik u m u ra e x h a u ste d h is adm i nis trat i ve rem edies for hi s B i vens c la im a g a in s t th e C o rr e c tio n a l O ffic e rs . Second, theycont end thatM r . K i kum ur a’ s ent i r e ac t i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed pur s uantt o t he t ot al exhaus t i on rul e announc ed i n R o ss v . C o u n ty o f B e rn a lil lo , 365 F. 3d 1181 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w hi ch w as deci ded af t ert he magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued hi s O r derr ecomm endi ng t hatal l four t een of M r . K i kum ur a’ s cl ai m s be d is m is s e d o n th e irm e ri ts . O n Sept ember1, 2005, w e gr ant ed M r . K i kum ur a’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m ent of couns el forthe appe al . W e al s o di r ect ed the part i es t o s ubm i ts uppl ement al bri efi ng on tw o is sues: 1. D i d M r . K i kum ur a ade quat el yexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es i n thi s case w i th respectt o the cl ai m s he rai sed i n h i s B i vens c o mpl a i n t , a s r e q u i r e d b y4 2 U. S. C. § 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) ?- 21-

2 . If h e fail ed to ex h au st an yo f h is cl aim s, sh o u ld the d istri ct co u rt h a v e d ism iss e d h is e n tire c o m p lain t w ith o u t p reju d ice , p u rsu a n t to th i s c i r c u i t ’ s t o t a l e x h a u s t i o n ru l e ? See R o ss v . C o u n ty o f B e rn a lil lo , 3 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 8 1 , 1 1 9 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). O rd e r, S e p t. 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a t 3 . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . E x haust i on of

A dm i ni s t rat i ve R em edi es for t he Bi v e ns Cl a i ms In 199 6, as partof the P ri son L i t i gati on R eform A ct(PL R A ), C on gress es t abl i s hed a mandat oryexhaus t i on r equi r ementfori nm at es chal l engi ng pr i s on condi t i ons i n fede r al court . Pub. L . N o. 104- 134, 110 St at . 1321 ( 1996) . Sect i on 1997e( a) s t at es that“[n] o act i on s hal l be br oughtw i th r es pectt o pr i s on condi t i ons unders ect i on 1983 of thi s t i t l e, oranyotherFeder al l aw , bya pr i s onerconfi ned i n anyj ai l , pr i s on, orot hercorr ect i onal fac i l i tyunt i l s uch admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es as ar e ava i l abl e ar e exha us t ed. ” 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( a) . T hi s exhaus t i on r equi r ement“appl i es t o al l i nm at e s ui t s aboutpr i s on l i fe, w hethert heyi nvol ve gener al ci r cumst ance s orpart i cul arepi s odes , and w hethert heyal l ege e xces s i ve for ce ors om e otherw r ong. ” P o rte r v . Nu ss le , 5 3 4 U .S . 5 1 6 , 5 3 2 (2 0 0 2 ). A s a fe der al pr i s oner , M r . K i kum ur a had t o pur s ue hi s cl ai m s t hr ough the B O P ’s a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d yp ro g ra m b e fo re in itia tin g h is la w s u it. See P at elv. F l em i ng , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e B O P re q u ire s in m a tes to

“ fir s t p re s e n t a n is s u e o f c o n c e rn in fo rm a lly to s ta ff.” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 .1 3 (a ).- 22-

I nm at es w ho w i s h t o pur s ue thei rgr i evanc e furtherm ayfi l e “a form al w r i t t en A dm i ni s tr at i ve R emedyR eques t , on the appr opr i at e form ( B P- 9) ” w i th the W ar den of the pr i s on, s o l ong as theyactw i thi n “20 ca l endarday s fol l ow i ng the dat e on w hi ch the bas i s forthe r eques toccurr ed. ” 28 C . F. R . § 542. 14( a) . I f “not s at i s fi ed w i th the W ar den’ s r es pons e, ” they“mays ubm i tan A ppeal on the appr opr i at e form ( B P- 10) t o the appr opr i at e R egi onal D i r ect orw i thi n 20 cal endar d a y s o f th e d a te th e W a rd e n s ig n e d th e re s p o n s e .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 .1 5 (a ). F i nall y , “[a]n i nm at e w ho i s not s at i sfi ed w i th the R egional D i rect or’ s r espon se m ays ubm i tan A ppeal on the appr opr i at e form ( B P- 11) t o the G ener al C ouns el w i thi n 30 cal endarday s of the dat e the R egi onal D i r ect ors i gned the r es pons e. ” Id . A ft err ecove r i ng fr om hi s i nj ur i es , M r . K i kum ur a pur s ued hi s gr i evanc e thr ough al l fours t eps of the admi ni s tr at i ve pr oces s . H e fi l ed an i nform al gr i evanc e w i th the pr i s on r egar di ng the medi cal tr eatm enthe r ece i ved on J ul y5, 2002, fol l ow ed bya form al B P- 9 gr i evanc e, and then s ucce s s i ve B P- 10 and B P- 11 ap p ea ls. T h e B O P ac ce p ted e ac h fil ing as ti m ely , ad d resse d m o st of M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c la im s o n th e irm e ri ts , a n d d e n ie d h is re q u e s ts fo r r e lie f. T he D efe ndant s ar gue thateven though M r . K i kum ur a pr ocee ded thr ough a l l fo u rs t a g e s o f

th e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e s s , h e d i d n o tp r o p e r l ye x h a u s th i s c l a i ms ag ains t eac h o f th e ind ividu al de fe n d an ts. T h eyco n tend that b ec au se M r. K i kum ur a’ s B P- 9 focus ed on the al l eged mal fea s ance of M r . O s agi e, and di d not- 23-

m enti on anyof the otherdefe nd ants , he fa i l ed to exh austhis B i vens c l a i ms a g a in s t th e C o rr e c tio n a l O ffic e rs a n d S u p e rv is o ry D e fe n d a n ts . T he m agis trat e j ud ge acc epted part , bu tno tal l , of the D efen dan t s’ ar gum ent . C ontr aryt o the D efe ndant s ’ pos i t i on, the magi s tr at e j udge conc l uded thatM r . K i kum ur a s at i s fi ed the exha us t i on r equi r ement s forhi s cl ai m agai ns tt he C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s , expl ai ni ng that“al though pl ai nt i ff doe s notpr ovi de names fo r th e m [ in h is g rie v a n c e fili n g s], p lain tiff d o e s p ro v id e su fficie n t in fo rm a tio n to putpr i s on admi ni s tr at or s on not i ce i n r egar d t o the i dent i t i es of the part i es about w hom pl ai nt i ff w as m aki ng compl ai nt , and the natur e of the cl ai m he w as m aki ng. ” M ag. R ec. 14–15. A tthe s ame t i m e, how ever , the magi s tr at e j udge determ i ned that M r. K i ku m ura fai l ed to exh austhis B i vens cl ai m agai ns tthe Super vi s oryD efe ndant s beca us e the “br oad conc l us orys t at ement ” r egar di ng pr i s on pol i cyi n the B P- 9 “does notpr ovi de not i ce t o pr i s on admi ni s tr at or s about anys peci fi c compl ai ntthatpl ai nt i ff mi ghthave ha d. ” Id . at15–16. T he di s tr i ct co u rtad o p ted b o th o f th ese fin d ing s in the o rde r dism issi n g M r. K iku m u ra’s c o m p la in t. W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n d e n o v o . P at el , 415 F. 3d at 1 1 0 8 . W hen an i nm at e compl et es al l of the admi ni s tr at i ve s t eps r equi r ed by pr i s on r egul at i ons , “[a ] s how i ng of exha us t i on . . . [i s ] depende ntupon i ns i ght i nt o the admi ni s tr at i ve cl ai m and i t s r el at i ons hi p w i th the fe der al s ui t . ” St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of

P r is ons , 355 F. 3d 1204, 1210 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . T her e i s no doubtA ccor di ng t o Str ong , “[t ] he onl ycons tr ai nt ” on admi ni s tr at i ve r emedy 5 p ro g ra m s “ is th a t n o p riso n sy ste m m a ye sta b lish a re q u ire m e n t in c o n sis ten t w ith the fe der al pol i cyunder l y i ng § 1983 and § 1997e( a) . ” Str ong , 2 9 7 F .3 d a t 6 4 9 . Si nce the B O P has nots etfor th anyr egul at i ons conce rni ng the fa ctual part i cul ar i tyr equi r ed i n a gr i evanc e, t her e i s no need forus t o eval uat e the a g e n c y ’s re g u la tio n s in lig h t o f § 1 9 8 3 a n d § 1 9 9 7 e (a ).

- 24- that“[a ] l i t i gant ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i s s ues dur i ng an admi ni s tr at i ve appe al can cons t i tut e a fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . ” K i kum ur a v. Hur l ey , 242 F. 3d 950, 956 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . T hi s C our thas not , how ever , det erm i ned how m u c h in fo rm a tio n p riso n e rs m u st p ro v id e in th e ir a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e s to s a tis f yth e P L R A ’s e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e not e ouragr eementw i th the Seventh C i r cui tthat th e q u e stio n o f

“ w h a t th in g s a n a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e m u st c o n tain ” is first a “choi ce- of- l aw i s s ue. ” S tro n gv . D a v id , 297 F. 3d 646, 649 ( 7th C i r . 2002) . Si nce § 1997e( a) does nots peci fyt he pr ocedur al r equi r ement s nece s s aryforexhaus t i on, “the rul es come fr om t he pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t ems themsel ves — s t at e l aw for s t at e pr i s ons , fede r al admi ni s tr at i ve l aw forfede r al pr i s ons . ” Id . ( hol di ng that “gr i evanc es m us tcont ai n the s or tof i nform at i on thatthe admi ni s tr at i ve s y s t em req u ir es” ). In th is case , h o w ev er, th e re g u lat ion s g o v ern ing the B O P ’s

5 admi ni s tr at i ve r emedypr ogr am do not s peci fyt he ki nd of i nform at i on neede d i n a g ri e v a n c e . See 28 C . F. R . §§ 540. 10 & 542. 15. C ons equent l y , t hi s cas e r equi r es u s to c ra f

t a ru le fo r w h e n th e p ri s o n re g u la tio n s a re s ile n t.- 25-

T he D efe ndant s ar gue thatthi s C our ts houl d adopt“a rul e thatr equi r es t he i nm at e t o i ncl ude i n hi s gr i evanc e the i dent i ty , ei therbyname ordes cr i pt i on, of the a ll eg ed w ron g d o er a n d the n ature o f th e w ron g d o ing . ” A p p ell ee s’ S u p p . B r. 23 –2 4. T heyrel yon cases s uch as C u rr y v . Sc o tt , 2 4 9 F . 3 d 4 9 3 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), w her e the Si xth C i r cui thel d thata pr i s onerm us t“fi l e a gr i evanc e aga i ns tthe per s on he ul t i m at el ys eeks t o s ue” t o s at i s fythe exha us t i on r equi r ementof § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). Id . at 5 0 5 ; see also B ur t on v. Jones , 321 F. 3d 569, 575 ( 6th C i r . 2003) (“ [ F ]o r a c o u rt to fin d th a t a p riso n e r h a s a d m in istra tiv e lye x h a u ste d a c laim agai ns ta part i cul ardefe ndant , a pr i s onerm us thave a l l eged mi s tr eatm entor m isc o n d u c t o n th e p a rt o f th e d e fe n d a n t.”); A bdul - Muham m ad v. Kempker , 450 F .3 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 1

– 5 2 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( a d o p tin g th e S ix th C ir c u it’ s a p p ro a c h ). B eca us e M r . K i kum ur a’ s admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e di d noti dent i fythe C o rre c tio n a l O ffice rs o r S u p e rv iso ryD e fe n d a n ts a s w ro n g d o e rs, th e D e fe n d a n ts con t end that he fai l ed to exh austhis adm i nis trat i ve rem edies as t o those in d iv id u a ls . M r . K i kum ur a cont ends thata gr i evanc e s at i s fi es the exha us t i on req u ir em en ts of

§ 1 9 9 7 e(a ) so lo n g as it“a lert [s] the B O P o ffici als t o the n ature of the w r ongs bythe pr i s on s t aff. ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . 5. I n Str ong , the S e v e n th C irc u it ad o p ted th is ru le. J u d g e E a ste rb ro o k , w riting fo r th e p a n e l, c o n c lu d e d th a t:- 26-

W h e n th e a d m in istra tiv e ru leb o o k is s ilen t, a g rie v a n c e su ffice s if it a ler ts th e p riso n to th e n a tu re o f th e w ro n g fo r w h ich re d re ss is s ought . A s i n the not i ce- pl eadi ng s y s t em, the gr i evantneed notl ay o u t th e fa c ts , a rt ic u la te le g a l th e o ri e s , o r d e m a n d p a rt ic u la r r e lie f. A l l the gr i evanc e nee d do i s obj ecti nt el l i gi bl yt o s om e as s er t ed s h o rt c o m in g . 297 F. 3d at650. T he Second Ci r cui tadopt ed a s i m i l ars t andar d i n Johns on v. Tes tm an , 3 8 0 F .3 d 6 9 1 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( C a la b re s i, J .). Johns on hol ds that “[u] ncouns el l ed i nm at es navi gat i ng pr i s on admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es w i thout as s i s t ance cannotbe expe ct ed t o s at i s fya s t andar d m or e s tr i ngentthan thatof not i ce pl eadi ng. ” Id . at697. Si nce “ the PL R A ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ementdoes requi re that pr i son o ffi ci al s be ‘afford[ed ] . . . t i m e and op po rtun i tyt o ad dress compl ai nt s i nt ernal l y , ’ ” how ever , the courtfound that“i nm at es m us tpr ovi de enough i nform at i on aboutthe conduc tof w hi ch theycompl ai n t o al l ow pr i s on offi ci al s t o t ake appr opr i at e r es pons i ve meas ur es . ” Id . ( quot i ng P o rte r v . Nu ss le , 5 3 4 U .S . 5 1 6 , 5 2 4

– 2 5 (2 0 0 2 )) . W ith o u t a c o n tro lli n g sta tu to ryp ro v isio n o r re g u latio n to g u id e o u r a n a ly sis i n choos i ng betw een thes e tw o rul es , w e mustl ook t o the purpos es of § 1997e( a) to d eterm ine w h at i n fo rm ati o n an inm ate m u st pro v ide in a g ri ev an ce . In Woodf or d v. N go , the S u p re m e C o u rt sta ted th a t “[ t]h e P L R A a ttem p ts to el i m i nat e unw arr ant ed fe der al - courti nt er fer ence w i th the admi ni s tr at i on of p riso n s, a n d th u s s e e k s to ‘a ffo rd c o rre c tio n s o fficia ls tim e a n d o p p o rtu n ityto addr es s compl ai nt s i nt ernal l ybefor e al l ow i ng the i ni t i at i on of a feder al cas e. ’ ”- 27-

__ U . S. __, 126 S. C t . 2378, 2387 ( 2006) ( quot i ng Nu ss le , 534 U . S. at525 ( al t er at i on om i t t ed) ) . T he C our tfound that“[r ] equi r i ng pr operexhaus t i on s erves a ll o f th e se g o a ls,” b u t “o n lyif th e p riso n g rie v a n c e sy ste m is g iv e n a fa ir oppor tuni tyt o cons i derthe gr i evanc e. ” Woo dford , __ U . S. at__, __, 126 S. C t . at 2387, 2388. T he r eas oni ng of Woo dfordthus l ends s uppor tt o the appr oach fol l ow ed bythe Second a nd Seventh C i r cui t s : thata gr i evanc e w i l l s at i s fythe exhaus t i on r equi r ements o l ong as i ti s not“s o vague a s t o pr ecl ude pr i s on offi ci al s fr om t aki ng appr opr i at e meas ur es t o r es ol ve the compl ai nti nt ernal l y . ” B r ow nel lv. Kr om , 4 4 6 F .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he D efe ndant s cont end thatthi s appr oach a s ks t oo l i t t l e of pr i s oner s , and as s ertthatt he “r eas onabl enes s ” of a rul e r equi r i ng i nm at es t o i dent i fyal l eged w ron g d o ers in the irg ri ev an ce is “ap p are n t. ” A p p ell ee s’ S u p p . B r. 2 3 . W e a re unconvi nced. T he Supr eme C our thas caut i oned that“the cr eat i on of an ad d it ion al pro ce d u ral t ec h n icali ty. . . [is] pa rt icularlyinap p rop ri ate in a statu tory s cheme i n w hi ch l aym en, unas s i s t ed bytr ai ned l aw y er s , i ni t i at e the pr oces s . ” Love v. P ul lm an C o. , 404 U . S. 522, 526–27 ( 1972) . N otonl ydo i nm at es typical l yfi l e t heirgri evan ces pro se, bu tB O P proced ures al l ow pri soners j ust tw entyday s fr om the d at e of thei r i njuryt o fil e a gri evan ce; theyare al l ow ed les s than a p ag e a n d a h alf to w ri te ou t a co m p lai n t; an d , b ec au se th eyare i ncar cer at ed, t he i nm at es oft en ca nnoti nves t i gat e thei row n cl ai m s t o i dent i fyt he al l eged w r ongdoer s . 28 C . F. R . §§ 542. 14( a) & ( c) ( 3) ; A m . C om pl . E x. A - 2;- 28-

B r ow n v. Si kes , 2 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 9 n .4 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (n o tin g th a t “[ a ]p p e llate court s have a cknow l edged the di ffi cul t i es fac ed bya pr i s oneri n i dent i fy i ng a l l e g e d wr o n g d o e r s b e fo r e fi l i n g a c o mp l a i n t . ” ) . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , th e BO P adm i nis trat i ve rem edyprogram do es not pr ov i de inm at es a procedu ral m echan i sm foramendi ng thei rgr i evanc es t o i dent i fyaddi t i onal defe ndant s orpr ovi de new i nform at i on aboutthei rcl ai m s , and fe der al r egul at i ons pr ohi bi ti nm at es fr om ra is in g n e w is s u e s in th e ira d m in is tr a tiv e a p p e a ls . 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 4 2 .1 5 (b )( 2 ). G i ven this proced ural con t ext, w e do no tfi nd i tso “app arent ” t hat i nm at es m ust b e re q u ir e d to s p e c ific a lly id e n tif yth e w ro n g d o e rs in th e irin itia l g ri e v a n c e . M r. K ik u m u ra ’s d ili g e n t, bu t u lti m a telyu n su c c e ss f u l, attem p t to id e n tifya ll o f th e a lleg e d w ro n g d o e rs in h is g rie v a n c e ill u stra tes th e p ro b lem . B e c a u se o f h is m emoryl os s caus ed bythe hyponatr emi a, M r . K i kum ur a w as unaw ar e of the C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s ’ al l eged mal fea s ance atthe t i m e he f i l ed hi s i ni t i al g ri ev an ce . W ith resp ec t t o h is cl aim ag ains t th e S u p erv isoryD efen d an ts, M r. K ik u m u ra e x p lain s th a t “[ i]t is n o t [ a n ] e a sytas k fo r a p riso n e r” su c h a s h im se lf t o l earn the “c hai n of comm and i n t he pr i s on and i t s admi ni s tr at i ve s y s t em so as to claim the issu e[ s] i n d etail []” in a g ri ev an ce . A p p ell an t’ s B r. P 1 8 -3. M r. K i kum ur a’ s bes toppor tuni tyt o i dent i fyanypos s i bl e mal fea s ance w as thr ough t he g rie v a n c e p ro c e ss itse lf, an d in h is B P -9 h e a sk e d fo r th e W a rd e n “ to in v e stig a te the ca s e and l et[hi m ] know the r es ul t [s ] ” of the i nves t i gat i on. A m . C om pl . E x.- 29-

A - 3. Y et , undert he D efe ndant s ’ pr opos ed rul e, M r . K i kum ur a w oul d be l i m i t ed to h is s p e c ific a lle g a tio n s o f w ro n g d o in g in th e in itia l g ri e v a n c e . W e al s o r ej ectthe D efe ndant s ’ cont ent i on thatthe s t andar d forexhaus t i on appl i ed i n the Second a nd Seventh C i r cui t s — w hi ch r equi r es i nm at es t o pr ovi de enough i nform at i on i n thei rgr i evanc es forpr i s on offi ci al s t o addr es s the compl ai nti nt ernal l y— turns t he gr i evanc e pr oces s i nt o “an e m ptyform al i ty . ” A ppel l ees ’ Supp. B r . 23. T he B O P adm i ni s tr at i ve r emedypr ogr am i s an i nqui s i t or i al s y s t em desi gned “t o s ol ve pr obl ems and be r es pons i ve t o i s s ues i nm at es r ai s e. ” U . S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, B ur eau of Pr i s ons Pr ogr am S t at ementN o. 1330. 13, at10 ( A ug. 13, 2002) ( “Pr ogr am S t at ement ”) . Pr oper l ys ubm i t t ed gr i evanc es m us tbe “i nves t i gat ed thor oughl y ” byi ndepende ntpr i s on offi ci al s , and r ecor ds of “a l l r el evanti nform at i on devel oped i n the i nves t i gat i on, ” i ncl udi ng w r i t t en s t at ement s fr om others t aff m ember s r egar di ng m at t er s r ai s ed i n the gr i evanc e, “s hal l be r et ai ned w i th the ca s e fi l e. ” Id . at12. T he i nqui s i t or i al m od el ado pted byt he B O P i s consi st ent w i th a rul e al l ow i ng i nm at es t o ex hau st th e ir a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies w ith a g rie v a n c e th a t p ro v id e s p riso n o fficia ls a fa ir oppor tuni tyt o i nves t i gat e and r es ol ve the compl ai nti nt ernal l yeven w i thout s p e c ific a lly id e n tif

y in g w ro n g d o e rs . Cf

. Si m s v. Apf

el , 530 U . S. 103, 109 ( 2000) ( “[T] he des i r abi l i tyof a c our ti m pos i ng a r equi r ementof i s s ue exha us t i on depends on the degr ee t o w hi ch the ana l ogyt o nor m al adver s ar i al l i t i gat i on a p p lie s in a p a rt ic u la r a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e e d in g .” ).- 30-

T he D efe ndant s al s o as s ertthati nm at es s houl d be r equi r ed t o i dent i fy w r ongdoer s i n thei rgr i evanc es beca us e the fe der al pr i s on s y s t em re cei ves “thous ands of i nm at e gr i evanc es ” ea ch y ear , and “the pr i s on admi ni s tr at i on pr oces s s houl d notbe r equi r ed t o cas ta w i de i nves t i gat i ve neti n or dert o i dent i fy and r es ol ve al l pos s i bl e cl ai m s . ” A ppel l ees ’ Supp. B r . 22. T he pol i cy c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e n o tq u i t e s o s tr a i g h t fo rwa r d , h o we v e r . Th e g r i e v a n c e fo r ms now s uppl i ed t o fede r al i nm at es ar e des i gned t o “enc our age a s i m pl e and s tr ai ght forw ar d s t at ementof the i nm at e’ s gr i evanc e, ” and i nm at es m aypl ace no m or e than “a s i ngl e compl ai ntora r eas onabl e numberof cl os el yr el at ed i s s ues on th e fo rm .” 2 8 C .F .R . § § 4 0 .7 (a ), 5 4 2 .1 4 (c )(2 ). T h e se re stric tio n s a re in ten d e d to “fa ci l i t at e[] i ndexi ng, and pr om ot e[] eff i ci ent , t i m el yand compr ehens i ve att ent i on t o the i s s ues r ai s ed” i n the gr i evanc e. Pr ogr am S t at ement7. A rul e thatpenal i zes i nm at es for fai l i ng t o ident i fydefe nd ants as w rongd oers m i gh tun derm i ne these goal s byencour agi ng i nm at es t o l i s ti n thei rgr i evanc es any one w ho m i ght po ssi blybe involved in the all eged w rongd oing, rather than focu si ng on the m ost l i k e l yp e rp e tr a t o ro rc a u s e o f t h e i ri nj u ry . We d o n o tk n o w wh e th e rth e BO P w oul d pr efe rl ongerand more det ai l ed gr i evanc es fr om i t s i nm at es , as the D efe ndant s ’ pr opos ed rul e w oul d s eem t o fos t er . For tunat el y , i ti s notourpl ace to m a k e th a t d e c isio n . If th e B O P w a n ts in m a tes to p ro v id e m o re in fo rm a tio n , it c a n m a k e th a t d e te rm in a tio n its e lf th ro u g h th e ru le m a k in g p ro c e s s .- 31-

Fi nal l y , and perhaps m os ti m por t ant l y , w e not e the abs ence of anyevi dence that M r. K iku m u ra w as e v er info rm ed h e w as re q u ir ed to ide n ti fythe w ron g d o ers i n hi s gr i evanc es . I f the B O P w ant s i nm at es t o pr ovi de s peci fi c types of in fo rm a tio n in th e ir g rie v a n c e s, it sh o u ld n o tifyth e m o f th o se re q u ire m e n ts in advanc e r atherthan w ai t i ng unt i l theyhave a l r eadycompl et ed the gr i evanc e p ro c e s s a n d file d a la w s u it. See S i ms , 5 3 0 U . S . at 11 3 (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n cu rri n g ); R i ccardo v. R aus ch , 3 7 5 F . 3 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Wi th o u ts u c h n o t i c e , we h o ld th a t a g rie v a n c e sa tisfies § 1 9 9 7 e (a )’s e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t so lo n g a s it pr ovi des pr i s on offi ci al s w i th enough i nform at i on t o i nves t i gat e and a ddr es s the in m a te ’s c o m p la in t in te rn a lly. W e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t M r. K ik u m u ra e x h a u ste d h is ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies ag ains t M r. O sag ie an d the tw o C o rrecti o n al O fficers underthi s s t andar d. I n hi s B P- 9, M r . K i kum ur a des cr i bed the eve nt s s ur r oundi ng hi s i nj uryas bes the coul d: he cl ai m ed thathe w as negl i gent l ydeni ed medi cal tre a tm e n t; h e id e n tifie d th e v a rio u s p e o p le h e k n e w to b e in v o lv e d in th e in c id e n t; h e re co u n ted O fficer S an d ers’s allege d v ersion o f e v en ts, w h ich b lam ed M r. O sa g ie fo r th e d e lay i n m e d ica l trea tm e n t; h e a sk e d fo r a n in v e stig a tio n in to h is c a se ; an d h e re q u e ste d a n yleg a l re lief to w h ich h e m ig h t b e e n tit led . T h is info rm ati o n w as su ffici en t t o en ab le prison o ffici als t o inv esti g ate M r. K i kum ur a’ s compl ai ntagai ns tM r . O s agi e and the C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s , evenM r . K i kum ur a ar gues thateven i f he fai l ed t o exhaus thi s cl ai m agai ns tt he 6 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 32- though he di d notacc us e the l att ertw o defe ndant s of w r ongdoi ng unt i l he fi l ed h is c o m p lain t in fe d e ra l co u rt. W e a lso a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s fin d in g th a t M r. K ik u m u ra fa iled to exh austhis adm i nis trat i ve rem edies againstthe fo ur Su pervi soryD efen dan t s, C a p ta in B a u e r, C a p ta in G re e n w o o d , W a rd e n P u g h , a n d A s s is ta n t W a rd e n B u rr e ll. C l ai m s i x of the amended compl ai ntacc us es thes e fourdefe ndant s of vi ol at i ng M r . K i kum ur a’ s E i ghth A m endmentr i ght s byfai l i ng t o pr ovi de ade quat e tr ai ni ng a n d d isc ip lin e to th e p riso n sta ff. In h is B P -9 , h o w e v e r, M r. K ik u m u ra ’s o n ly refere n ce to p ri so n “p o li cy ” is w h ere h e a sk s the W ard en “to tak e n ec essa ry a c t i o n [ , ] i n c l u d i n g t o d e c i p l i n e [ s i c ] i n v o l v e d p e r s o n [ s ] wh o v i o l a t e d my cons t i tut i onal r i ght s acc or di ng t o t he B O P pol i cyori ntr oduce ne w pol i cys o that th e sa m e w ro n g -d o in g w o n ’t h a p p e n a g a in .” A m . C o m p l. E x . A -3 . A lth o u g h th is sta tem e n t im p lies th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s inju rie s m a yh a v e b e e n c a u se d b yth e o ld pr i s on pol i ci es , t he vague r efe r ence t o “pol i cy ” w as i ns uffi ci entt o not i fypr i s on offi ci al s thatt he i nj ur i es m i ghthave be en ca us ed byi nadequa t e tr ai ni ng and d isc ip lin a ryp ro g ra m s a t th e p riso n . S in c e p riso n o fficia ls w e re u n lik e lyto r ecogni ze the nee d t o i nves t i gat e thes e cl ai m s , the B P- 9 di d notpr ovi de the pr i s on w i th a fa i roppor tuni tyt o r es ol ve M r . K i kum ur a’ s compl ai ntagai ns tthe Super vi s oryD efe ndant s . T he s i xth cl ai m i s ther efor e unexha us t ed. 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 Super vi s oryD efe ndant s i n hi s B P- 9, the R egi onal D i r ect orcur ed thatfai l ur e by ad d ressing the m erit s o f th e c lai m in the resp o n se to h is B P -10 ap p ea l. M r. K i kum ur a mi s r eads the B P- 10 r es pons e. A l though the openi ng par agr aph of the B P- 10 r es pons e ac know l edges hi s cl ai m r egar di ng the pr i s on’ s “pol i cyconce rni ng m edi cal car e, ” i tdoes notaddr es s the cl ai m on i t s m er i t s , A m . C om pl . E x. A - 6, a n d th e re fo re d o e s n o t c u re h is fa ilu re to e x h a u s t th e c la im . See P at elv. F l em i ng , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T her e ar e di ffe r i ng vi ew s among t he C our t s of A ppeal s as t o w hethert he 7 P L R A s h o u ld b e re a d to c o n ta in a to ta l e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. C ompa re Jones B ey v . Johns on , 407 F. 3d 801, 806 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( adopt i ng the t ot al exhaus t i on ru le ), and G ra v e s v . No rr is , 2 1 8 F .3 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 5 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( s a m e ), w ith O rtiz v. McBri de , 3 8 0 F . 3 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 6 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (r ejec ti n g the to tal ex h au sti o n rule), Sp encer v. B ou cha rd , 4 4 9 F .3 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( s a m e ), and Li r a v. Herrara , 427 F. 3d 1164, 1176–77 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( appl y i ng the t ot al exhaus t i on rul e onl yw hen the “e xhaus t ed and une xhaus t ed cl ai m s . . . ar e cl os el yr el at ed and d i ffi c u l tt o u n t a n g l e ” ) . T h e S u p r e me Co u r tr e c e n t l yg r a n t e d c e r t i o r a r i i n t wo c a s e s to re s o lv e th e is s u e . See Jones v. B ock , 1 3 5 F ed . A p p x . 8 3 7 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . gr ant ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 14 6 2 (U .S . M a r. 6 , 2 0 0 6 ) (N o . 0 5 -7 0 5 8 ); Wi l l i am s v. O ver t on , 1 3 6 F e d . A p p x . 8 5 9 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . gr ant ed , 12 6 S. Ct . 14 63 ( U . S. M a r. 6 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 5 -7 1 4 2 ).

- 33- B . T h e T o ta l E x h a u stio n R u le Si nce M r . K i kum ur a fa i l ed t o exhaus tone of hi s cl ai m s , w e mustdeci de w h e th e r h is e n tir e c o m p la in t s h o u ld b e d is m is s e d u n d e r t h e to ta l e x h a u s tio n ru le . I n R o ss v . C o u n ty o

f B e rn a lil lo , 365 F. 3d 1181 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w e hel d thatt he PL R A r equi r es t ot al exhaus t i on of cl ai m s as s er t ed i n a pr i s onerl aw s ui t , and therefore “m i xed ” act i on s contai ning bo th ex hau st ed an d u nex hau st ed clai m s m ust b e d is m is s e d in th e ire n tir e ty w ith o u t p reju d ic e . Id . at 1 1 9 0 . T h e D e fe n d a n ts 7 c o n ten d th a t R oss re q u ire s u s to d ism iss th is a c tio n . In o n e re sp e c t, ho w e v e r, th is c a s e d i ffe r s f

r o m R oss . A tthe t i m e the courtor der ed di s m i s s al i n R oss , i tw as- 34-

still p o ss ib le, a t lea st in th e o ry , fo r th e p lain tiff to p u rsu e h is u n e x h a u ste d c laim w i thi n the admi ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e s y s t em. T hatgave r i s e t o conce rns over p ie c e m e a l liti g a tio n . R oss , 3 6 5 F . 3 d at 11 9 0 . In th is case , h o w ev er, M r. K i kum ur a al r eadys ubm i t t ed hi s unexhaus t ed cl ai m t o the gr i evanc e s y s t em, and the B O P i s s ued a f

i nal admi ni s tr at i ve dec i s i on deny i ng the cl ai m as un t i m el y— al beital l aft er M r. K i ku m ura fi l ed h i s federal l aw sui t . W e m ust ther efor e dec i de w hetherthe t ot al exhaus t i on rul e appl i es w hen, aft erthe pr i s oner fil es a “m ixed ” c o m p lai n t, the p ri so n issue s a final o rde r rejecti n g the p ri so n er’s u n e x h a u s te d c la im s o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s . Th e a n s we rtu r n s o n t h e r a t i o n a l e fo rth e t o t a l e x h a u s t i o n ru l e . Th e P LRA sta tes th a t “[ n ]o a c tio n sh a ll b e b ro u g h t w ith re sp e c t to p riso n c o n d iti o n s . . . u n til s u c h a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s a s a re a v a ila b le a re e x h a u s te d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 1997e( a) . T he l anguage of thi s pr ovi s i on does notr equi r e ( orfor ecl os e) a t ot al exhaus t i on rul e. I n R oss , w e not ed thatthi s l anguage “s ugges t s ” a t ot al e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t “b e c a u se it p ro h ib its a n ‘a c tio n ’ (a s o p p o se d to m e re ly p rev en ti n g a ‘c lai m ’) from p roc ee d ing u n ti l adm inistrati v e re m ed ies are exhaus t ed. ” R oss , 365 F. 3d at1190. B utothers t atut es cont ai n s i m i l ar l yw or ded e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n ts th a t w e h a v e n o t in te rp re te d to re q u ir e to ta l e x h a u s tio n . See, e. g. , MacKenz i e v. C i t y and C ount

y of D enve r , 414 F. 3d 1266, 1274 & n. 13 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (a p p ly in g th e e x h a u stio n p ro v isio n o f th e A m e ric a n s w ith D isa b ili ties A c t, w h ich sta tes th a t “[ n ]o a c tio n . . . sh a ll b e b ro u g h t . . . ifI ndeed, anotherpr ovi s i on of the PL R A us es al m os ti dent i cal l anguage : 8 “ [ n ]o F e d e ra l c iv il a c tio n m a yb e b ro u g h t . . . fo r m e n ta l o r e m o tio n a l inju ry . . . w i thouta pr i ors how i ng of phy s i cal i nj ur y . ” 42 U . S. C . § 1997e( e) . T hi s has been i nt erpr et ed nott o r equi r e di s m i s s al of the ent i r e ca s e i f one c l ai m does not q u a lif y . See Robi ns on v. P age , 1 7 0 F .3 d 7 4 7 , 7 4 8

– 4 9 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). B ycontr as t , i n Jones B ey v . Johns on , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 7 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), 9 the Si xth C i r cui t“adopt [ed] the t ot al exhaus t i on rul e, i n l ar ge part , beca us e the pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e di ct at es s uch a r es ul t . ” S e e a lso G ra v e s v . No rr is , 2 1 8 F . 3 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 5 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (sam e).

- 35- ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies h av e n o t bee n ex h au sted , ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 6 1 0 4 (e)(2), w i thout a t ot al exhaus t i on rul e. ) . L egi s l atur es fr equent l yempl oyt he phr as e “no 8 a c tio n s h a ll b e b ro u g h t” in s ta tu te s o f lim ita tio n s , s ee B each v . O cw en Fed. B ank , 523 U . S. 410, 416 ( 1998) , obvi ous l yw i thouti nt endi ng thatcourt s di s m i s s an ent i r e ac t i on j us tbeca us e one of the cl ai m s as s er t ed i n the compl ai nti s t i m ebarr ed. A ccor di ngl y , the R oss C ou rtado pted the tot al exh aust i on rul e no tbecau se i twa s d i c t a t e d b yth e s t a tu t o r yl a n g u a g e , b u tb e c a u s e “ [ t ] h e p o l i c i e s o f t h e P LRA

. . . stro n g lysu p p o rt a re a d in g o f th a t sta tu te th a t re q u ire s in m a tes to e x h a u st f u lly al l of thei rcl ai m s . ” R oss , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 ; see also O r t izv. McBri de , 380 F. 3d 649, 656 n. 3 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( not i ng thatt he R oss C our t“conc l uded thatt he di s m i s s al of a ‘ m i xed’ act i on w as r equi r ed, butr el i ed on the l anguage of the statu te on lyin p assin g . ”). 9 T he R oss C o u rt re lied p rim a rilyo n a n a n a lo g yto th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le ap p li ca b le i n h ab ea s p roc ee d ing s, w h ich it fo u n d to se rve sim il ar p u rpo ses. In R os e v. Lundy , 455 U . S. 509 ( 1982) , t he Supr eme C our thel d thatw hen a pr i s oner10

Si nce ourdeci s i on i n R oss , the S u p rem e C o u rth as h inted that the P L R A ’s (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 36- had exha us t ed s om e butnotal l cl ai m s br oughti n a habe as pet i t i on, the di s tr i ct c o u rt m u s t d is m is s th e e n tir e h a b e a s p e titio n w ith o u t p reju d ic e . Id . a t 5 1 0 . A lth o u g h th e tex t o f

th e h a b e a s e x h a u stio n p ro v isio n w a s “ to o a m b ig u o u s to s us t ai n the conc l us i on thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o ei therperm i torpr ohi bi tr evi ew of m i xed pet i t i ons , ” the Supr eme C our tconcl uded that“a rul e r equi r i ng exhaus t i on of al l cl ai m s fur ther s the purpos es under l y i ng the habe as s t atut e. ” Id . a t 5 1 0 , 5 1 6 . In p a rticu lar , the S u p re m e C o u rt n o ted th a t th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le

“ g iv [ e s] th e p riso n e r th e c h o ice o f re tu rn in g to sta te c o u rt to lit ig a te h is unexhaus t ed cl ai m s , orof pr ocee di ng w i th onl yhi s exhaus t ed cl ai m s i n fede r al court . ” Id . at514. Si nce a pr i s onerw ho pr ocee ded w i th onl ythe exha us t ed cl ai m s “w oul d r i s k for fei t i ng cons i der at i on of hi s unexhaus t ed cl ai m s , ” the Supr eme C our tconcl uded that“s tr i ctenfor cementof the exha us t i on r equi r ement w i l l encour age ha beas pet i t i oner s t o exhaus tal l of thei rcl ai m s i n s t at e courtand t o pr es entthe fe der al courtw i th a s i ngl e habe as pet i t i on. ” Id . at 5 2 0 ; see also R oss , 365 F. 3d at1189–90. A ppl y i ng “a s i m i l aranal y s i s , ” w e conc l uded i n R oss that“the pol i ci es under l y i ng t he PL R A poi ntt ow ar d a r equi r ementof t ot al exhaus t i on, ” and thus hel d thati f a pr i s oner“s ubm i t [s ] a compl ai ntcont ai ni ng one orm or e unexha us t ed cl ai m s , the di s tr i ctcour tor di nar i l ym us tdi s m i s s the ent i r e act i on w i thout pr ej udi ce. ” 365 F. 3d at 1190. 10( . . . cont i nued) 10 exhaus t i on pr ovi s i on s houl d be i nt erpr et ed i n l i ghtof the admi ni s tr at i vee x h a u s tio n d o c tr in e ra th e r t h a n h a b e a s la w . See Woodf or d v. N go , __ U .S . __ , 126 S. C t . 2378, 2392 ( 2006) ( “I ti s . . . unr eal i s t i c t o i nferfr om the w or di ng of the PL R A pr ovi s i on thatC ongr es s fr amed and adopt ed thatpr ovi s i on w i th habea s l a w a n d n o ta d mi n i s tr a t i v e l a w i n mi n d . I n d e e d , th e wo r d i n g o f th e P LRA pr ovi s i on . . . i s s tr i ki ngl ys i m i l art o ourdes cr i pt i on of the doctr i ne of admi ni s tr at i ve exha us t i on. ”) . T he C our t ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve- exhaus t i on doctr i ne does n o t a p p e a r t o c o n ta in a to ta l e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t. See, e. g. , McKar tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 9 5 U .S . 1 8 5 (1 9 6 9 ).

- 37- N one of the pol i cycons i der at i ons thatl ed us t o adoptthe t ot al exhaus t i on rul e i n R oss appl yt o the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e. T he R oss C o u rt r eas oned thatt he t ot al exhaus t i on rul e w oul d “enc our age pr i s oner s t o . . . gi ve p riso n o fficia ls th e first o p p o rtu n ityto re so lv e p riso n e r c o m p lain ts,” “ fa c ili tate th e c re a tio n o f

a n a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd th a t w o u ld u lti m a telya ss ist fe d e ra l co u rts in a d d re ss in g th e p riso n e r’s c laim s,” “ re liev e d istric t co u rts o f th e d u tyto det erm i ne w hethercert ai n exhaus t ed cl ai m s ar e s ever abl e fr om otherunexhaus t ed cl ai m s , ” and “ avoi d atl eas ts om e pi ece m eal l i t i gat i on. ” Id . at1190. W her e the pl ai nt i ff s ubm i t s t he unexha us t ed cl ai m t o the pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em aft erfi l i ng sui t , and the p ri son is sues a fi nal r ej ect i on of thatcl ai m for un t i m el i ness, these con cerns ar e i nap po si t e. T he p ri son o ffi ci al s have a l readybeen given t he fir st o p p o rtu n ityto reso lve th e c o m p lai n t, the a d m inistrati v e re co rd is co m p let e, th ere i s no need t o det erm i ne w hetherexhaus t ed cl ai m s ar e s ever abl e fr om unexhaus t ed cl ai m s , and ( beca us e the unexha us t ed cl ai m s have be en fi nal l yr ej ect ed on tim e lin e s s g ro u n d s ) t h e re is n o p o s s ib ility o f p ie c e m e a l liti g a tio n .See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 1 (b ); C o lo . R e v . S tat. § § 1 3 -8 0 -1 0 2 & 1 0 2 .5 ; Van Tu 11 v. Kos t er , 3 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

- 38- A p p ly in g th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le u n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s w o u ld sim p ly w as t e j udi ci al r es our ces and cr eat e an unne ces s arybur den on l i t i gant s . T he t ot al exhaus t i on rul e i s notm eantt o for ce c our t s t o pl ay“a ga m e of j udi ci al p in g -p o n g ” w ith in m a te la w s u its . Har r is v. R eed , 489 U . S. 255, 270 ( 1989) (O ’C o n n o r, J. , co n cu rri n g ). If w e d ism issed this acti o n w ith o u t prejud ice, M r. K i kum ur a w oul d undoubt edl yj us tdr op the unexha us t ed cl ai m fr om hi s compl ai nt and fi l e the ac t i on agai n, cr eat i ng unnece s s arydocket i ng and as s i gnm entw or k for th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d fo rc in g M r. K ik u m u ra to p a ya g ra tu ito u s filin g fe e . M o re o v e r, if M r. K ik u m u ra w e re re q u ire d to re file h is a c tio n in th e d istric t co u rt, hi s pr oper l yexhaus t ed cl ai m s m i ghtnow be barr ed bythe appl i cabl e s t atut es of l i m i t at i ons — a pr obl emat i c out come cons i der i ng M r . K i kum ur a’ s di l i gent

11 effor t s t ow ar d exhaus t i on. I n R hi nes v. Weber , 544 U . S. 269 ( 2005) , t he Supr eme C our tcr aft ed an exce pt i on t o t he habe as t ot al exhaus t i on rul e thatw as des i gned t o pr events uch an o u tc o m e . S e e id . at277–78. T he courthel d that“i f a pe t i t i onerpr es ent s a di s t r i ct c o u rt w ith a m ix e d p e tit io n a n d th e c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t a s tay an d a b e y a n c e [ to al l ow t i m e forexhaus t i on i n s t at e court ] i s i nappr opr i at e, t he courts houl d al l ow the pet i t i onert o del et e the unexha us t ed cl ai m s and t o pr ocee d w i th the exha us t ed cl ai m s i f di s m i s s al of the ent i r e pet i t i on w oul d unr eas onabl yi m pai rt heI n O ’ Sul l i van v. B oer cke l , 5 2 6 U . S . 8 3 8 , 8 4 8 (19 9 9 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt 12 appea r ed t o j ett i s on i t s ol d di s t i nct i on betw een the exha us t i on rul es and the p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt d o c tr in e in h a b e a s la w . See id . a t 8 5 0

– 5 6 (S te v e n s , J ., d iss e n tin g ); P ozo v. McC au gh try , 2 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). B u t in Woo dfordth e Co u r tr e tu r n e d t o i t s t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e twe e n t h e t wo d o c tr in e s . Woo dford , __ U .S . a t _

_ , 1 2 6 S . C t. a t 2 3 8 7 .

- 39- pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o obt ai n r el i ef. ” Id . at278. O uri nt erpr et at i on of the t ot al e x h a u stio n ru le a c c o m p lish e s a sim ilar e n d in th e P L R A c o n tex t. D ism iss in g a n e n tire a c tio n u n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w h e re th e o n ly “unexha us t ed” c l ai m i n the compl ai ntw as al r eadyr ej ect ed bythe pr i s on on pr ocedur al gr ounds , w oul d al s o be contr aryt o the ana l y s i s and hol di ng of R oss , w hi ch w as bas ed on an a nal ogybetw een the exha us t i on r equi r ementi n habea s and th e P L R A . In th e h a b e a s c o n tex t, w h e n a p e tit io n e r d e fa u lts h is fe d e ra l cla im s in sta te c o u rt b yfa ili n g to c o m p lyw ith th e sta te’ s p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts, h e still

“ m e e ts th e tec h n ica l re q u ire m e n ts fo r e x h a u stio n ” sin c e “ th e re a re n o sta te r emedi es anyl onger‘ avai l abl e’ t o hi m . ” C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722, 732 ( 1991) . W hi l e the pr ocedur al defa ul trul e gene r al l ybar s pr i s oner s fr om as s ert i ng fede r al cl ai m s t hatw er e deni ed bythe s t at e court s on pr ocedur al g ro u n d s, th o se c laim s d o n o t trigg e r th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le b e c a u se th e ya re , in fa c t, e x h a u s te d . O ’ Sul l i van v. B oer cke l , 5 2 6 U .S . 8 3 8 , 8 5 2 (1 9 9 9 ) ( S te v e n s , J ., d iss e n tin g ). Ju st a s “ a [ h a b e a s] p e tit io n e r w h o h a s fa iled to sa tisf ysta te 12 p roc ed u ral rules m ee ts th e ‘tech n ical req u ir em en ts fo r ex h au sti o n ’” a n d there fo re does nottr i ggerthe t ot al exhaus t i on rul e, t he R oss C our texpec t ed the s ame t o be- 40-

tru e fo r a p ri so n er w h o h as fail ed to sa ti sfythe p ri so n g ri ev an ce sy stem ’s p ro c e d u ra l ru le s . R oss , 365 F. 3d at1185 ( quot i ng C ol em an , 5 0 1 U .S . at 7 3 2 ); s ee als o id . at11 86 (hol ding “t hat the P L R A , l i ke 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 4, con t ai ns a p ro c e d u ra l d e fa u lt c o n c e p t w ith in its e x h a u s tio n re q u ir e m e n t.” ). I n keepi ng w i th the R oss C o u rt’s p o licy -b a se d a n a ly sis a n d th e a n a lo g yit dr ew betw een ha beas and the PL R A , w e dec l i ne D efe ndant s ’ i nvi t at i on t o ext end the PL R A ’ s t ot al exhaus t i on rul e t o the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e. O ur h o ld in g o n th is p o in t h a s th re e c o m p o n e n ts. F irst, an a c tio n c o n tain in g b o th exhaus t ed cl ai m s and pr ocedur al l ybarr ed cl ai m s does notfal l w i thi n the s cope of the t ot al exhaus t i on rul e. Second, thi s i s true eve n i f the pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em di d noti s s ue a f

i nal r ej ect i on of the pr ocedur al l ybarr ed cl ai m s unt i l aft erthe pr i s onerfi l ed s ui t . T hi r d, cl ai m s thathave be en pr oper l ydeni ed bythe pr i s on as unt i m el yar e, pr act i cal l ys peaki ng, pr ocedur al l ydefa ul t ed, and thus m aybe di s m i s s ed fr om the compl ai nti ndi vi dual l yand w i th pr ej udi ce. W e di s cus s eac h o f th e s e p o in ts in tu rn . T he fi r s tcomponentof ourhol di ng i s thata cl ai m r ej ect ed bythe pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em on proc edur al gr ounds i s cons i der ed exha us t ed forpurpos es of the t ot al exhaus t i on rul e. T hi s rul e fol l ow s di r ect l yfr om the ana l y s i s and hol di ng of R oss , w hi ch i m por t ed the narr ow defi ni t i on of exha us t i on and pr ocedur al d e fa u lt c o n c e p t o f

h a b e a s in to th e P L R A a lo n g w ith th e to ta l e x h a u s tio n ru le . R oss , 3 6 5 F . 3 d at 11 8 5

– 8 6 , 1 1 8 9

– 9 0 . W e re co g n ize tha t th e S u p rem e C o u rt- 41-

r ece nt l yr ej ect ed the cont ent i on that“the w or di ng of the PL R A exhaus t i on pr ovi s i on . . . s how s t hat[§ 1997e( a) ] w as m eantt o i ncorpor at e the narr ow t echni cal defi ni t i on of exha us t i on thatappl i es i n habea s . ” Woo dford , __ U . S. at

__ , 1 2 6 S . C t. at 2 3 9 2 . In ste a d , the C o u rt re a d th e lan g u a g e o f § 1 9 9 7 e (a ) to i m po se a si ng l e requi rem ent of “prope r exhau st i on of ad m i nis trat i ve rem edies , w hi ch ‘ m eans us i ng al l s t eps thatthe age ncyhol ds out ’ ” i n “compl i ance w i th an agenc y ’ s deadl i nes and othercr i t i cal pr ocedur al rul es . ” Woo dford , __ U . S. at__,

__, 126 S. C t . at2385–86 ( quot i ng P ozo v. McC au gh try , 2 8 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 4 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )). U n d er Woo dford , t her efor e, cl ai m s r ej ect ed bythe pr i s on gr i evanc e sy ste m o n p ro c e d u ra l g ro u n d s a re still co n sid e re d u n e x h a u ste d . B u t Woo dford r el at es onl yt o the exha us t i on r equi r ement s i m pos ed by§ 1997e( a) i t s el f, w hi ch govern w hethera pr i s onerm ayobt ai n j udi ci al r evi ew of a PLR A cl ai m w hen he fai l ed t o m eetthe pr ocedur al r equi r ement s forobt ai ni ng admi ni s tr at i ve r evi ew of th a t c la im . Woodf

or d do es not address the tot al exh aust i on rul e, w hich i s a s e p a r a t e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e me n tg r o u n d e d i n “ th e p o l i c i e s u n d e r l y i n g th e P L RA ” ra th e r t h a n in th e te x t o f § 1 9 9 7 e (a ). R oss , 3 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 . Woo dforddoes not r equi r e us t o di s turb the s ym m etrybetw een the t ot al exhaus t i on rul es i n habea s a n d th e P L R A . A lth o u g h p ro c e d u ra lly -b a rre d c laim s a re g e n e ra llyc o n sid e re d to be unexha us t ed underthe PL R A forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hethertheym aybe pur s ued i n court , w e hol d thats uch cl ai m s s houl d be tr eat ed as exhaus t ed for pu rposes of t he tot al exh aust i on rul e, j ustas theyare for habeas.O f cour s e, s i nce the PL R A r equi r es exhaus t i on as a pr er equi s i t e t o fi l i ng 13 s u it, s ee F i tzg e r a ldv . Co r r . Co r p . o f A m. , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 4 0

– 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2005) , court s m aynotgr antr el i ef t o a pr i s onerbas ed on a c l ai m t hatw as r ej ect ed b yth e p ri s o n o n its m e ri ts s u b s e q u e n t to th e filin g o f th e la w s u it.

- 42- T he s econd c om ponentof ourhol di ng i s thatthe t ot al exhaus t i on rul e does notr equi r e di s m i s s al of the ent i r e ac t i on w her e, s ubs equentt o the fi l i ng of the l aw s ui t , the pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em has i s s ued a f i nal deni al of anyunexhaus t ed cl ai m s on pr ocedur al gr ounds . T hi s el i m i nat es the dange rof “pi ece m eal litig a tio n ” a n d th u s s a tis fie s th e re le v a n t p o lic ie s o f th e to ta l e x h a u s tio n ru le . R oss , 365 F. 3d at1190. W her e the pr evi ous l yunexhaus t ed cl ai m s i n a compl ai nt have be en deni ed bythe pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em on proc edur al gr ounds , w hether b efo re o r af

ter th e p ri so n er fil es su it , the o n lyeffe ct of d ism issi n g the e n ti re c o m p la in t w o u ld b e to u n n e c e s s a ri ly b u rd e n th e litig a n ts a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . T hi s pr es erves t he s ym m etrybetw een the PL R A and habe as , w hi ch under l i es the hol di ng i n R oss . A fter fil ing a “ m ixed ” h ab ea s p eti ti o n , p ri so n ers c a n a v o id d ism iss a l u n d e r th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le b ysu b m itt in g th e ir u n e x h a u s te d c la im s to th e s ta te c o u rt s . See R hi nes v. Weber , 544 U . S. 269, 278 (2 0 0 5 ). It fo llo w s th a t th e to tal e x h a u stio n ru le u n d e r th e P L R A m u st n o t ap p ly to p ro c e d u ra llyb a rre d c laim s, e v e n if th e p riso n g rie v a n c e sy ste m iss u e d its d e n ial o f

th o se c laim s a f

ter th e p riso n e r filed h is la w su it. 13 T h e th ird c o m p o n e n t o f o u r h o ld in g is th a t a c laim th a t h a s b e e n p ro p e rly r ej ect ed bythe pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em on proc edur al gr ounds s houl d be- 43-

di s m i s s ed fr om the pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai ntw i th pr ej udi ce. A l though “[a ] di s m i s s al b a se d o n lac k o f

e x h a u stio n . . . sh o u ld o rd in a rilyb e w ith o u t p reju d ice ,” th is is b e c a u s e “ [ f] a i l u r e t o e x h a u s ta d m i n i s tr a t i v e r e m e d i e s i s o f t e n a t e m p o r a ry, cur abl e, pr ocedur al fl aw . ” St eele v. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 355 F. 3d 1204, 1212–13 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . O nce a pr i s on form al l ydeni es an i nm at e’ s gr i evanc e forunt i m el i nes s , and ei therthe i nm at e does notchal l enge the bas i s forthat deci s i on orthe courtuphol ds t he dec i s i on, the i nm at e’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus ti s no l onger“a t empora r y , cur abl e, pr ocedur al fl aw . ” Such a c l ai m s houl d be di s m i s s ed w ith p reju d ic e . A ft erfi l i ng s ui t , M r . K i kum ur a s ubm i t t ed hi s unexhaus t ed cl ai m agai ns tt he Super vi s oryD efe ndant s t o the pr i s on gr i evanc e s y s t em. T he pr i s on s y s t em r ej ect ed thatcl ai m as unt i m el y , and M r . K i kum ur a does notchal l enge that d isp o sitio n . W e th e re fo re a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r d ism iss in g w ith prej ud i ce M r. K i ku m ura’ s B i vens c laim a g a in st C a p tain B a u e r, C a p tain G r eenw ood, W ar den Pugh, and A s s i s t antW ar den B urr el l . B utcontr aryt o the D efe ndant s ’ ar gum ent , t he t ot al exhaus t i on rul e does notr equi r e di s m i s s al of the re m a in in g c la im s in M r. K ik u m u ra ’s c o m p la in t.- 44-

C . F ai l ure t o St at e a C l ai m und er t he E i ght h A m endm ent & Q ual i fi ed Im m u n it y It is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t p riso n o fficia ls v io late th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t if thei r“del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o s er i ous m edi cal needs of pr i s oner s cons t i tut es t he unnece s s aryand w ant on i nfl i ct i on of pai n. ” Este lle v . G a m b le , 429 U . S. 97, 104 ( 1976) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “Thi s i s t rue w hethert he i ndi ffe r ence i s m ani fes t ed bypr i s on doct or s i n thei rr es pons e t o the pr i s oner ’ s needs orby pr i s on guar ds i n i nt ent i onal l ydeny i ng ordel ay i ng acc es s t o m edi cal car e. ” Id . at 104–05 ( footnot es om i t t ed) . A tthe s ame t i m e, how ever , “[m]e di cal m al pr act i ce do es not becom e a con st i tuti on al viol at i on m erel ybecau se the v i ct i m i s a pr i s oner . ” Id . at106. A compl ai ntabout“an i nadvert entfai l ur e t o pr ovi de adequa t e medi cal car e” or“thata phy s i ci an has been ne gl i genti n di agnos i ng or tr eat i ng a medi cal condi t i on does nots t at e a va l i d cl ai m of m edi cal m i s tr eatm ent underthe Ei ghth A m endment . ” Id . at105–06. “R ather , ‘ a pr i s onerm us tal l ege a c ts o r o m iss io n s s u fficie n tlyh a rm f u l to e v id e n c e d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e to s er i ous m edi cal needs . ’ ” Sel f v. C r um , 439 F. 3d 1227, 1230 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Este lle , 4 2 9 U . S . at 10 6 ). T he t es tfora “de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” cl ai m undert he Ei ghth A m endment has “both an obj ect i ve and a s ubj ect i ve component . ” Seal ock v . C ol or ado , 218 F .3 d 1 2 0 5 , 1 2 0 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e o bjec tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f th e tes t is m e t if the harm s uffe r ed i s “s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous ” t o i m pl i cat e the C ruel and U nus ual- 45-

P u n is h m e n t C la u s e . Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 834 ( 1994) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he s ubj ect i ve component“i s m eti f a pr i s on offi ci al

‘ know s of and di s r egar ds an exc es s i ve r i s k t o i nm at e hea l th ors afe ty . ’ ” Seal ock , 218 F. 3d at1209 ( quot i ng Far m er , 511 U . S. at837) . M or eover , t o over come t he q u ali fied im m u n ityd efen se, th e p ri so n er “ m u st de m o n str ate tha t th e d efen d an t’ s act i ons vi ol at ed a s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal r i ght , ” and “ then s how thatthe cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as ‘ cl ear l yes t abl i s hed’ pr i ort o the cha l l enged offi ci al act i on. ” Ma ta v . Sa iz , 4 2 7 F .3 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e s tr es s the pr ocedur al cont extof thi s cas e. Pr i ort o di s covery , the m a g istra te ju d g e ru led th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im s fa iled to s at i s fythe obj ect i ve and s ubj ect i ve component s of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . T he m agi s tr at e j udge conc l uded thatbeca us e M r . K i kum ur a “fai l ed t o al l ege fact s t hat d e m o n s tr a te th e a c tio n s o f th e d e fe n d a n ts v io la te d a fe d e ra l o r s ta tu to ry rig h t,” the D efe ndant s “ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . ” M ag. R ec. 34. T he di s tr i ct co u rtad o p ted e ac h o f th ese h o lding s in it s o rde r dism issi n g M r. K iku m u ra’s act i on. T he ques t i on befor e us i s ther efor e notw hetherM r . K i kum ur a has p re se n ted e v id e n c e in su p p o rt o f h is c o m p lain t, bu t w h e th e r h is a lleg a tio n s, if true, st at e a cl ai m un der the E i gh th A m end m ent. “D i sm i ssal of a p ro se compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m i s pr operonl yw her e i ti s obvi ous thatthe pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l on t he fa ct s he has al l eged a nd i tw oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m an opportuni tyt o amend. ” Hu n t v. U p h o ff , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (10 th C ir .- 46-

1999) ( quot i ng P erki ns v. Kan . D ep’tof C orr. , 1 6 5 F . 3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (10 th C ir . 19 99 )) . “In add i t i on t o co nst rui ng a pro se com plai nt l i beral l y , this cou rt‘m ust acc eptthe al l egat i ons of the compl ai ntas true and c ons true thos e al l egat i ons , and anyreas on able i nferences t hat m i gh tbe d raw n from them , i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ’ ” Mar t i nezv. G ar den , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2005) ( quot i ng G ai nes v. St ens eng , 2 9 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 )) . 1. O bj e c t i ve C ompone nt T o sa tisf

yth e o bjec tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f a d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e c laim ar i s i ng underthe Ei ghth A m endment , “the al l eged de pr i vat i on m us tbe

‘ s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous ’ t o cons t i tut e a de pr i vat i on of cons t i tut i onal di m ens i on. ” Sel f v. C r um , 4 3 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). “[ T ]h e p u rp o se fo r th is r equi r ementi s t o l i m i tcl ai m s t o s i gni fi cant , as oppos ed t o tr i vi al , s uffe r i ng. ” Ma ta v . Sa iz , 427 F. 3d 745, 753 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . C ons equent l y , w e l ook t o the a lleg e d inju ryc laim e d b yth e p riso n e r, an d a sk “ w h e th e r th a t h a rm is s u fficie n tly s er i ous . ” Id . W hen the pr i s oner ’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m i s pr emi s ed on an a l l eged d e lay i n m e d ica l ca re , the p riso n e r m u st “ sh o w th a t th e d e lay res u lted in s ubs t ant i al harm . ” O xendi ne v. Kaplan , 241 F. 3d 1272, 1276 ( 10th C i r . 2001) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h a t “s u b sta n tial h a rm ” c a n b e th e u lti m a te phy s i cal i nj urycaus ed bythe pr i s oner ’ s i l l nes s , s o l ong as t he pr i s onercan s how thatthe more t i m el yr ece i ptof m edi cal t r eatm entw oul d have mi ni m i zed or- 47-

p re v e n te d th e h a rm . See Ma ta , 42 7 F . 3d at75 3. T he “sub st anti al harm ” can a l so be an i nt erm edi at e i nj ury , s uch as the pai n exper i ence d w hi l e w ai t i ng for tr e a tm e n t a n d a n a lg e s ic s . Id . A l tho ug h “n ot everytw i ng e of p ai n suffered as a r es ul tof del ayi n m edi cal car e i s act i onabl e, ” w hen the pai n exper i ence d dur i ng the del ayi s s ubs t ant i al , the pr i s oner“s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s hes the obj ect i ve el ementof the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t es t . ” Seal ock , 218 F. 3d at1210. M r . K i kum ur a cl ai m s t hathe expe r i ence d s ever e pai n aft erbei ng s entback t o hi s cel l fr om t he i nfi r m arybyM r . O s agi e. H i s compl ai ntpr ovi des the fo llo w in g d e sc rip tio n o f e v e n ts: [A ft ert hey ] r eturned me t o t he ce l l [, ] . . . I w as l ai d on the bed by the [Corr ect i onal O ffi cer s ] beca us e the s ever e pai ns and cr amps had m e u n a b le to sta n d u p o r w a lk . T h e re , m yc o n d iti o n w a s ra p id ly det er i or at ed. Fol l ow i ng s ever e vomi t i ng up t o the beds i de af t er appr oxi m at el y1530, I cr eptt ow ar d the t oi l etforw at er . C ol l aps i ng bythe t oi l et , endl es s l yl ett i ng m e dr i nk m anyw at erand thr ow i tup vi ol ent l yar ound the fl oor , untr eat ed extr eme cr amps and pa i ns s p re a d th ro u g h o u t th e w h o le o f m yb o d ya s if

im p o s in g m e a to rt u re . I tgave me r i s e t o ps y chol ogi cal angui s h and horr orof dea th, as I w as w r i thi ng and thr as hi ng i n the w as t e al l hour , cea s el es s l ys cr eami ng “help m e, ” fal l i ng i nto a con fusi on w hich w as caused b ythe il l ness that w as a lso d am ag ing m yb rain. A n d then fin all ym ym em o ry cea s ed ar ound 1600–1630. E ven ther eaf t er , I cont i nued t or m ent ed wi th t h o s e t o r tu r o u s p h y s i c a l i nj u ry , p a i n s a n d d i s tr e s s , a n d e x tr e me p sy c h o lo g ica l an g u ish (fo r n e x t 1 2 h o u rs u n til I re tu rn e d to sta b le co n d it ion ). A m . C o m p l. 6 (gra m m ati ca l errors in o ri g inal). Ad d i t i o n a l l y , i f

we r e a d M r . Ki k u mu r a ’ s c o mp l a i n tl i b e r a l l y , h e a l s o c l a i ms that the d el ayi n tr eat m ent “caused” h i s “phy si cal i njury ”; presum ablybecau se- 48-

ear l i ertr eatm entw oul d have s t opped the hyponatr emi a fr om r eac hi ng a cr i t i cal s t age. A m . C om pl . 8. M r . K i kum ur a des cr i bes hi s ul t i m at e i nj ur yfr om the del ay as fol l ow s: W hen pr i s on doct orD r . L eyba arr i ved atm e ar ound 2220, I w as ‘ an a c u te s tatu s th ra sh in g fo llo w in g a se izu re lik e re a c tio n ’ a n d ‘in extr emus, ’ and he t ook aggr es s i ve ca r e of mym edi cal condi t i on th ro u g h o u t th e n ig h t. I su ffe re d w ith m e d ica l inju ryw ith hyponatr emi c enc ephal opathy , acut e pul m onaryadema and conges t i ve hea r tfai l ur e, s ever el ydamagi ng i nt ernal or gans , s uch as b ra in , h e a rt , lu n g s , liv e r, k id n e y s , s to m a c h , to n g u e a n d m o u th . . . . I w a s p lac e d o n e m e rg e n c yre sp o n se sta tu s b e tw e e n 7 /5 a t 2 2 2 8 to 7 /8 a t 0 6 0 0 . . . . P h y sic a l w e a k n e ss , fe e lin g sic k , n a u se a , p a in s in s t om ach, l egs and bac k, l i m bs brui s i ng and thei rpai ns , emot i onal a n x ietya n d d istre ss , p a rtial m e m o rye lap sin g , an d d ifficu ltyin i nt el l i gentw or ks cont i nued t i l l ar ound end of J ul y , and mi l d phy s i cal p r o b l e m a s t a n g i b l e a f t e r e ffe c t s o f

th e d i s e a s e a n d m e n t a l a n x i e ty, depr es s i on, and s om e di ffi cul tyfori nt el l i gentw or ks fur therl as t ed unt i l ar ound end of Sept emberi n 2002. A m . C o m p l. 7 (gra m m ati ca l and sp ell ing erro rs i n o ri g inal). T he “t or tur ous ” pai n M r . K i kum ur a al l egedl yexper i ence d as a r es ul tof the d e lay i n m e d ica l ca re , alo n g w ith h is s ig n ifica n t p h y sic a l inju rie s, is e n o u g h to s at i s fythe “s ubs t ant i al harm ” r equi r ementof the obj ect i ve componentof a d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e c la im . 2. Subj e c t i ve C ompone nt T he more di ffi cul ti s s ue r ai s ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs i s w hether M r . K i kum ur a ca n pr ove a s etof fa ct s s uffi ci entt o s at i s fyt he s ubj ect i ve c o m p o n e n t o f

h is d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e c laim s a g a in st M r. O sa g ie, O ffice r V a il, a n d O ffice r S a n d e rs. T h e su bjec tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f a d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e c laim- 49-

r equi r es an “i nqui r yi nt o a pr i s on offi ci al ’ s s t at e of mi nd w hen i ti s cl ai m ed that the off i ci al has i nfl i ct ed cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 8 (1 9 9 4 ). It is n o t en o u g h to a lleg e th a t p riso n o fficia ls fa iled “ to al l evi at e a s i gni fi cantr i s k that[they ] s houl d have pe r cei ved butdi d not . ” Id . To s how “the r equi s i t e del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , ” M r . K i kum ur a “mustes t abl i s h that defe ndant ( s ) knew he fa ced a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of harm and di s r egar ded thatr i s k,

‘ byfai l i ng t o t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o abat e i t . ’ ” Hu n t v. U p h o ff , 199 F. 3d 1220, 1224 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng Far m er , 51 1 U . S . at84 7). W e fi rs tadd res s M r . K i kum ur a’ s fourE i ghth A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tM r . O s agi e, fol l ow ed by his E i gh th A m end m ent cl ai m againstthe C orr ect i on al O ffi cers .

a . M r . O sa g ie M r. K ik u m u ra a ss e rts fo u r c laim s a g a in st M r. O sa g ie fo r d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence , eac h cent er i ng on a s epar at e ac cus at i on. T hos e ac cus at i ons ar e, resp ec ti v ely : ( 1 ) M r. O sag ie fa il ed to p rov ide a d eq u ate m ed ical trea tm en t t o M r. K ik u m u ra w h e n h e first a rriv e d a t th e in f irm a ry ; (2 ) M r. O sa g ie fa iled to a llev iate M r . K i kum ur a’ s pai n and s uffe r i ng; ( 3) M r . O s agi e fa i l ed t o ful fi l l hi s gat ekee per r ol e byw ai t i ng appr oxi m at el ys i x hour s befor e ca l l i ng the pr i s on doct or ; and ( 4) aft erM r . O s agi e w as s um m oned t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s cel l a s econd t i m e, he knew th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s m e d ica l co n d iti o n w a s “ e x tre m e lya c u te” a n d y e t fa iled to ta k e h im to th e in fir m a ry fo r a t le a s t a n o th e r t w o h o u rs .- 50-

B ase d o n the m ag istrate jud g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n , the d istri ct co u rt d ism issed all fo u r of

M r. K iku m u ra’s E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim s ag ains t M r. O s agi e on the gr ound thatM r . K i kum ur a “a l l eged no fact s thatdemonstr at e” that M r . O s agi e pos s es s ed “a s uffi ci ent l ycul pabl e s t at e of mi nd. ” M ag. R ec. 24 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is w a s a n e rro r. M r. K ik u m u ra is m e re ly r equi r ed t o pr ovi de “a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ement ” of hi s E i ghth A m endment cl ai m s , Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) , and “[ m ] al i ce, i nt ent , know l edge, and othercondi t i on of mi nd of a pe r s on maybe a ve r r e d g e ne r a l l y ” i n the c ompl a i nt , Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 9 (b ). See C ur r i erv. D or an , 2 4 2 F .3 d 9 0 5 , 9 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); McBri de v. D eer , 240 F. 3d 1287, 1290 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . A ccor di ng t o M r . K i kum ur a’ s amended compl ai nt , M r . O s agi e “kne w ” thatM r . K i kum ur a “r equi r e[d] pr om ptm edi cal att ent i on and . . . thatdel ayw oul d exac erbat e [hi s ] heal th pr obl em, ” but del i ber at el y“di s r egar ded thatr i s k. ” A m . C om pl . 9. T hes e al l egat i ons s at i s fyt he p lea d in g re q u ire m e n t o f R u le 8 (a ) fo r th e su bjec tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f a d e lib e ra te i n d i ffe r e n c e c l a i m. O f cour s e, even w hen Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m s m eetthe pl eadi ng req u ir em en ts of

R u le 8(a ), tho se c lai m s sh o u ld sti ll b e d ism issed w h en “itap p ea rs b e y o n d d o u b t th a t th e p lain tiff c a n p ro v e n o se t o f

fa c ts in su p p o rt o f

h is c laim w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” C onl ey v . G i bs on , 3 5 5 U .S . 4 1 , 4 5

– 4 6 (1 9 5 7 ). Si nce the s ubj ect i ve componentof del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence i s bas ed on the pr i s on offi ci al s ’ s t at e of mi nd, i ti s “a que s t i on of fa cts ubj ectt o demonstr at i on i n the- 51-

us ual w ay s , i ncl udi ng i nfer ence fr om ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . ” Far m er , 51 1 U. S. at842. A l though pl ai nt i ffs ar e notr equi r ed t o pl ead s peci fi c fa ct s demonstr at i ng defe ndant s ’ cul pabl e s t at e of mi nd, theycan s t i l l underm i ne thei row n cas e by as s ert i ng fac t s i ncompat i bl e w i th a del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m . T he di s tr i ct courtdi s m i s s ed M r . K i kum ur a’ s E i ghth A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tM r . O s agi e on th is g ro u n d . M r. K iku m u ra ide n ti fies sp ec ifi c fac ts i n h is co m p lai n t from w h ich a jury coul d i nfert hatM r . O s agi e knew aboutthe s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm pos ed b y h i s i l l n e s s . M r . K i k u m u r a a l l e g e s th a tw h e n h e fi r s ta rr i v e d a tth e i n fi r m a ry, th e se v e rityo f

h is s ym p to m s w a s “ so o b v io u s a n d su b sta n tial” — in c lu d in g h is extr em e pain, nau sea, and i nab i l i tyt o st and or w al k — that M r. O sagi e “m ust h a v e k n o w n ” h e “ re q u ire [ d ] p ro m p t m e d ica l atte n tio n a n d . . . tha t d e lay w o u ld exac erbat e [hi s ] heal th pr obl em [and] . . . w as l i kel yt o i nfl i ctorpr ol ong unnece s s arypai n and s uffe r i ng. ” A m . C om pl . 8, 10, 12. I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that “a fact fi nd er m aycon cl ud e t hat a pr i son o ffi ci al kn ew of a su bst anti al ri sk fr om the veryfac tt hatt he r i s k w as obvi ous . ” Far m er , 5 1 1 U .S . at 8 4 2 ; s ee S e lf v. C r um , 439 F. 3d 1227, 1232- 33 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( a “j urym ayi nfercons ci ous di s r egar d” w hen a pr i s on doct or“r es ponds t o an obvi ous r i s k w i th tr eatm entthat i s pat ent l yunr eas onabl e. ”) . A j urycoul d ther efor e i nferfr om the al l eged “obvi ous nes s ” of M r . K i kum ur a’ s condi t i on thatM r . O s agi e knew of the s i g n i fi c a n tr i s k o f

h a r m.- 52-

N o n e th e les s, th e m a g istra te ju d g e d e ter m in e d th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s E ig h th A m endmentcl ai m s agai ns tM r . O s agi e w er e, i n r eal i ty , j us tcl ai m s fornegl i gent m i s di agnos i s and mal pr act i ce, and thus fai l ed t o s at i s fythe s ubj ect i ve component of the del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t es t . T hi s concl us i on fi nds s uppor ti n s om e of the fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t. M r. K ik u m u ra a d m its th a t M r. O sa g ie exami ned hi m atthe i nfi r m ary , r eport ed thathe found “ no pathol ogy ” otherthan lac to se in to ler a n c e , an d g a v e h im a c e tam in o p h e n b e fo re se n d in g h im b a c k to h is c e ll. A m . C o m p l. 5– 6 ; id . , E x. A -8. T hese al l egati on s, w i tho ut m ore, sugg est thatM r . O s agi e made a good fa i th at t empt t o tr eatM r . K i kum ur a and di d notact w i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . In o th e r p o rtio n s o f

th e c o m p lain t, ho w e v e r, M r. K ik u m u ra p re se n ts a lleg a tio n s th a t th e m e d ica l trea tm e n t h e re c e iv e d w a s m e re lya fa ç a d e th a t h id M r. O s a g ie ’s in te n tio n a l a n d re c k le s s d is re g a rd fo r M r. K ik u m u ra ’s w e ll- b e in g . M r . K i kum ur a cl ai m s t hatM r . O s agi e “kne w ” he “ r equi r e[d] pr om ptm edi cal att ent i on” w hen he f

i r s tarr i ved atthe i nfi r m ary , butw as “al r eadypr ej udi ced” againsthim , and therefore cho se not “t o v eri fyun derl y i ng fact s of [h i s] excruci at i ng s uffe r i ngs ” bec aus e he kne w i t“w oul d br i ng hi m [t o the] concl us i on thats om ethi ng w as notr i ght . ” A m . C om pl . 5, 8. I ns t ead, M r . O s agi e conduc t ed a “pe r funct oryexam, ” announc ed thatther e w as “no pathol ogyel i ci t ed, ” pr ovi ded m ed ical trea tm en t “so cu rsoryas to am o u n t t o n o tr ea tm en t atall , ” a n d sen t M r. K ik u m u ra b a c k to h is c e ll. Id . a t 5

– 6 , 8 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).- 53-

M or eover , even i f M r . O s agi e’ s i ni t i al m i s di agnos i s w as m er el ynegl i gent , the al l egat i on t hatM r . O s agi e del ay ed tr eatm entforappr oxi m at el ytw o hour s even aft erhe had r eal i zed the s er i ous nes s of M r . K i kum ur a’ s condi t i on l at erthat aft ernoon coul d s uppor ta cl ai m of del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . A tthi s s t age i n the p ro c e e d in g , w e d o n o t k n o w w h e th e r th e se a lleg a tio n s c a n b e su b sta n tiate d , b u t it i s not“bey ond doubt ” thatM r . K i kum ur a “c an pr ove no s etof fa ct s i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” C onl ey , 3 5 5 U .S . a t 4 5 -4 6 . W e ther efor e fi nd thatthe al l egat i ons i n M r . K i kum ur a’ s amended c o m p lain t ar e su fficie n t to sa tisf yth e su bjec tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f h is d e lib e ra te ind iffe ren ce claim s ag ains t M r. O sag ie. A s p rev iou slyn o ted, M r. K iku m u ra’s c l a i m s a g a i n s tM r . O s a g i e a l s o s a t i s f y th e o bj e c t i v e c o m p o n e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y, w e find that all fo u r of M r. K iku m u ra’s d eli b era te i n d iffe ren ce claim s ag ains t M r. O sagi e st at e a cl ai m up on w hich r el i ef co uld be granted. O f cou rs e, w e exp res s no opi ni on on w hetherthes e cl ai m s w i l l w i ths t and s um m aryj udgm entorbe p ro v e d o n th e m e ri ts .

b. T he C orre ct i onal O ffi cer s M r. K ik u m u ra a lleg e s th a t O ffice rs V a il an d S a n d e rs v io late d th e E ig h th A m endmentbyl eavi ng hi m i n hi s cel l fors ever al hour s w hi l e hi s condi t i on w o rsen ed , b efo re c all ing the in firm aryag ain. A cc o rdin g to the co m p lai n t, M r. K i kum ur a’ s condi t i on “r api dl ydet er i or at ed” s oon aft erhe w as r etur ned fr om t he i nfi r m aryt o hi s cel l at3: 30 p. m . A m . C om pl . 6. T he compl ai nts t at es t hatt he- 54-

Co rr e c t i o n a l Offi c e r s h a d a tl e a s tfo u rs e p a r a t e o p p o r tu n i t i e s b e twe e n 4 : 0 0 p . m. and 5: 30 p. m . t o vi ew M r . K i kum ur a i n hi s cel l , and theyther efor e “kne w ” that M r . K i kum ur a’ s “hea l th pr obl em w as exac erbat ed” a nd thathe “r equi r e[d] i m m edi at e medi cal att ent i on. ” Id . at12. M r . K i kum ur a al s o al l eges thatO ffi cer Sander s t ol d hi m t hatboth he and O ffi cerV ai l knew M r . K i kum ur a nee ded s er i ous m edi cal att ent i on s om et i m e ar ound 4: 00 p. m . N onethel es s , the C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s “di s r egar ded thatr i s k” and “ r eckl es s l y , know i ngl y , or in te n tio n a lly” d e la y e d c a llin g th e in fir m a ry a g a in u n til 7 :3 5 p .m . Id . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e id e n tifie d th re e re a so n s w h yM r. K ik u m u ra ’s c laim agai ns tthe C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s coul d nots at i s fythe s ubj ect i ve componentof th e d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e tes t. T h e d istric t co u rt a c c e p ted a ll th re e fin d in g s in its o rd e r d is m is s in g M r. K ik u m u ra ’s a c tio n . W e c o n s id e r e a c h in tu rn . F irst, th e m a g istra te ju d g e d e ter m in e d th a t th e C o rre c tio n a l O ffice rs c o u ld nothave ha d the r equi s i t e “c ul pabl e s t at e of mi nd” bec aus e “theyar e notm edi cal per s onnel , ” and ther efor e w er e not“i n a pos i t i on t o chal l enge ors econd- gues s t he concl us i on thathad bee n r eac hed byO s agi e. ” M ag. R ec. 25. T hi s fi ndi ng d i s r e g a r d s Offi c e rS a n d e r s ’ s a l l e g e d s e l f- i n c r i mi n a t o rys t a t e me n t— wh i c h we as s um e he trul ym ade forpurpos es of thi s appea l — thatby4: 00 p. m . he and O ffic e r V a il b o th k n e w M r. K ik u m u ra re q u ir e d im m e d ia te m e d ic a l a tte n tio n . M o re o v e r, g iv e n th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s h e a lth h a d “ ra p id lyd e ter io ra ted ,” it is pos s i bl e thateven a l ayper s on coul d have r ecogni zed a change i n ci r cumst ance s- 55-

nece s s i t at i ng emer gencym edi cal tr eatm ent . I n l i ghtof thes e al l egat i ons , w e do n o t b e liev e th a t th e C o rre c tio n a l O ffice rs’ lac k o f m e d ica l train in g n e c e ss a rily d efea ts th e infere n ce that theyd isr eg ard ed a k n o w n ri sk o f se ri o u s h arm to M r. K ik u m u ra . S e c o n d , the m a g istra te ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. K ik u m u ra ’s d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m agai ns tthe C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s i s i ncons i s t entw i th other fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s in h is c o m p lain t. In su p p o rt o f h is fo u rth d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence cl ai m agai ns tM r . O s agi e, M r . K i kum ur a s t at es thatthe C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s cal l ed the i nfi r m aryon hi s behal f a s econd t i m e atappr oxi m at el y4: 00 p .m ., b u t M r. O sa g ie ig n o re d th e ir c a ll an d lef t M r. K ik u m u ra in h is c e ll. T h is a lleg a tio n o b v io u slyc o n tra d icts M r. K ik u m u ra ’s d e lib e ra te in d iffe re n c e c laim ag ains t th e C o rrecti o n al O fficers, w h ich s tat es th at th eyd id n o t call the in firm ary agai n unt i l 7: 35 p. m . M r . K i kum ur a ac know l edges thi s contr adi ct i on, but expl ai ns thathe r ece i ved i ncons i s t entr eport s fr om pr i s on offi ci al s aboutthe t i m i ng of the s econd c al l t o the i nfi r m ary , and ther efor e pl ed thes e tw o s et s of fac t s i n the al t ernat i ve. Si nce the Feder al R ul es al l ow l i t i gant s t o pl ead i n the a lte rn a tiv e , s ee Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( e) ( 2) , M r . K i kum ur a’ s i ncons i s t ental l egat i ons re g a rd in g th e se c o n d c a ll t o th e in firm a ryd o n o t u n d e rm in e h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im a g a in s t th e C o rr e c tio n a l O ffic e rs . T hi r d, the magi s tr at e j udge found thatM r . K i kum ur a’ s al l eged “ per i od of s u ffe ri n g d u e to c o n d u c t o r i n a c tio n b yV a il a n d S a n d e rs la s te d o n ly tw o h o u rs ,”- 56-

and thi s s hor tdel ayi n tr eatm ent“ca nnotpos s i bl ycons t i tut e evi dence of d eli b era te i n d iffe ren ce . ” M ag . R ec . 2 6 . Init ial ly , w e n o te th at M r. K iku m u ra as s ert s thatt he C orr ect i onal O ffi cer s knew he nee ded emer gencym edi cal tr ea tm en t atap p rox im ately4 :00 p . m . , b u t th eyw ait ed u n ti l 7:35 p . m . b efo re cal l i ng the i nfi r m ary : a del ayof thr ee a nd a hal f hour s . I n anyevent , w e have hel d that“[e ] ven a br i ef de l aym aybe uncons t i tut i onal . ” Ma ta v . Sa iz , 427 F. 3d 7 4 5 , 7 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e a ll eg ed sev era l- h o u r de layin M r. K iku m u ra’s emer gencym edi cal t r eatm entw as m or e than s uffi ci entt o m eetthi s s t andar d, at le a s t fo r p u rp o s e s o f

a m o tio n to d is m is s . W e ther efor e fi nd thatM r . K i kum ur a has m etthe pl eadi ng r equi r ement s for h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t c la im a g a in s t O ffic e rs V a il a n d S a n d e rs . 3 . Q u a li fi ed Im m u n it y W hen a defend ant i nv ok es quali fi ed im m un i ty , t he p l ai nti ff m ust demonstr at e notonl ythatthe defendant ’ s act i ons vi ol at ed a s peci fi c cons t i tut i onal r i ght , butal s o t hatthe cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as “cl ear l yes t abl i s hed” a tt he t i m e th e a c tio n s to o k p la c e . Ma ta v . Sa iz , 4 2 7 F .3 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In th is cas e, how ever , no partyar gues thatt he “de l i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ” s t andar d for c laim s o f

in a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re u n d e r th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t w a s n o t cle a rly es t abl i s hed. T hos e s t andar ds have be en cl ear l yes t abl i s hed atl eas ts i nce Este lle v . G a m b le , 429 U . S. 97 at104, deci ded i n 1976. T he di s put e i n thi s cas e i s not o v e r t h e a p p lic a b le c o n s titu tio n a l s ta n d a rd , b u t o v e r h o w it a p p lie s to th e s e fa c ts .- 57-

Si nce w e conc l ude thatt he al l egat i ons i n M r . K i kum ur a’ s compl ai ntar e s uffi ci ent t o s t at e an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m agai ns tM r . O s agi e, O ffi cerV ai l , and O ffi cer Sander s , w e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng thatthes e defendant s ar e ent i t l ed to q u a lifie d im m u n ity.

D . F ai l ure t o F i l e a C ert i fi cat e of R evi ew U nderC ol or ado l aw , l i t i gant s w ho br i ng a cl ai m “bas ed upon the al l eged p ro fe ss io n a l n e g lig e n c e o f . . . a lic e n se d p ro c e ss io n a l” m u st “ file w ith th e c o u rt a c e rt ific a te o f

re v ie w . . . w ith in s ix ty d a y s a f te r t h e s e rv ic e o f

th e c o m p la in t . . . un l ess the co urtdeterm i nes t hat a l on ger peri od i s necessaryfor go od cause show n. ” C olo. R ev. S t at . § 1 3-20-60 2(1)( a). T his cert i fi cat e of review m ust d e c la re th a t th e p la in tiff ’s a tto rn e y , o r t h e p la in tiff h im s e lf in a p ro s e a c tio n , s ee Yad on v. So uthw ard , 64 P. 3d 909, 912 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2002) , “has cons ul t ed a per s on w ho has expert i s e i n t he ar ea of t he al l eged ne gl i gentconduct , ” and that “the pr ofes s i onal w ho has been c ons ul t ed . . . has concl uded thatt he fi l i ng of the cl ai m . . . does notl ack s ubs t ant i al j us t i fi cat i on. ” § 13- 20- 602( 3) ( a) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hat“C ol or ado’ s cert i fi cat e of r evi ew r equi r ementi s a s ubs t ant i ve ru l e o f l a w, ” a n d i s th e r e fo r e “ a p p l i c a b l e t o p r o fe s s i o n a l n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms br oughtagai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es undert he FT C A . ” Hi l lv. Sm i thkl i ne Beecham C orp . , 3 9 3 F . 3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). S ince M r. O sag ie i s a p h y sici an ’s as s i s t ant , and ther efor e a l i cens ed pr ofes s i onal , M r . K i kum ur a i s r equi r ed t o fi l e a- 58-

cert i fi cat e of r evi ew i n s uppor tof hi s FT C A cl ai m s bas ed on M r . O s agi e’ s al l eged n e g lig e n c e . M r . K i kum ur a tw i ce a s ked the magi s tr at e j udge t o ext end the dea dl i ne for fili n g a c e rtific a te o f

re v iew a n d to a p p o in t co u n se l to h e lp h im c o n tac t an e x p e rt, expl ai ni ng t hatas an “i ncar cer at ed pr i s oner , [he ha s ] no m eans t o cont actby hi m s el f . . . a doct orw ho coul d pr ovi de hi m w i th s uch a c er t i fi cat i on. ” M ot . for E xt ens i on of Ti m e & A ppoi nt m entof C ouns el 2. H e t ol d the magi s tr at e j udge thathe w as tr y i ng “t o obt ai n an att or neyw ho coul d exec ut e a ‘ cert i fi cat e of r evi ew , ’ ” buthe had w r i t t en t o num er ous l aw offi ces , w hi ch he l i s t ed, and ea ch of th e m h a d e ith e r d e c lin e d o r n o t r e s p o n d e d to h is re q u e s t fo r r e p re s e n ta tio n . Id . at 3 . Fi ve mont hs l at er , the magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued an or derr ecomm endi ng that M r . K i kum ur a’ s ent i r e ac t i on be di s m i s s ed and hi s out s t andi ng m ot i ons be deni ed as m oot . N ot i ng thats even mont hs had pas s ed s i nce the dea dl i ne forfi l i ng a cert i fi cat e of r evi ew , the magi s tr at e j udge found thatM r . K i kum ur a had a “ de fa c to ‘e x te n d e d p e ri o d o f tim e ’” to m e e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 13- 20- 602, and thatther e w as no poi nti n gr ant i ng a furtherext ens i on. M ag. R ec. 3 6 . T h e m ag istrate jud g e the refo re rec o m m en d ed d ism issi n g M r. K iku m u ra’s thr ee FTC A cl ai m s bas ed on M r . O s agi e’ s al l eged mal pr act i ce ( i . e. , cl ai m s s evenM r. K ik u m u ra d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d e c is io n to a p p ly C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § 14 13- 20- 602 t o hi s FT C A cl ai m bas ed on M r . O s agi e’ s “outr ageous conduct . ”

- 59- thr ough ni ne) , al ong w i th hi s FT C A cl ai m bas ed on M r . O s agi e’ s outr ageous co n d u ct (i . e., claim elev en ). 14 In h is objecti o n s to the m ag istrate jud g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n , M r. K iku m u ra chal l enged the deni al of hi s m ot i on r eques t i ng appoi ntm entof couns el and an ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of r evi ew . H e al s o fi l ed a s epar at e mot i on wi th th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tr e q u e s t i n g a p p o i n t me n to f c o u n s e l a n d a n e x t e n s i o n o f t i me t o fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of r evi ew . I n both fi l i ngs , M r . K i kum ur a ar gued thatunl es s he w as appoi nt ed couns el and al l ow ed more t i m e t o fi l e a c er t i fi cat e of r evi ew , C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 20- 602 w oul d uncons t i tut i onal l yhi nderhi s acc es s t o the court s as a pr o s e l i t i gantand pr i s oner . O bj . t o M ag. R ec. 25; M ot . forR econs i der at i on 1. T h e d istri ct co u rtaffirm ed the m ag istrate jud g e’s o rde r de n y ing M r. K i kum ur a an e xt ens i on of t i m e and appoi ntm entof couns el , expl ai ni ng thatt he m agi s tr at e j udge’ s deci s i on “i s nei thercl ear l yerr oneous norcontr aryt o l aw . ” O r der3. T he courtthen addr es s ed M r . K i kum ur a’ s s epar at e mot i on r eques t i ng a p p o i n t me n to f

c o u n s e l a n d a n e x t e n s i o n o f t i me t o fi l e a c e r t i fi c a t e o f r e v i e w, w hi ch i ttr eat ed “a s a new l y - fi l ed mot i on befor e [i t ] ” r athert han as an obj ect i on to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s ru lin g . Id . T he court“i ndepende nt l yagr ee[ d] w i th t he m agi s tr at e j udge that[M r . K i kum ur a] ha[d] had ampl e t i m e t o s ubm i ts uch a C ert i fi cat e. ” O r der4. A ddi t i onal l y , beca us e “mor e than a doz en l egal offi ces and- 60-

law p rofesso rs . . . d ec li n ed h is r eq u est” fo r l eg al assist an ce , the d istri ct co u rt fo u n d th a tM r . K i k u m u r a ’ s “ c l a i m s h a v e b e e n r e v i e w e d o n th e i rm e r i t s b y a num berof att orney s and found t o be w i thoutm er i t . ” Id . at 4. F inally , the c o u rt h e ld th a t th e re w a s “ n o c o n stitu tio n a l in firm ityin th e sta tu te’ s a p p lica tio n in th is cas e” be caus e i t“appl i es t o al l l i t i gant s pr o s e orotherw i s e, w hethera pr i s oneror not . ” Id . a t 5 . O n appea l , M r . K i kum ur a ar gues thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on b yd e n y i n g h i s r e q u e s t s fo ra p p o i n t me n to f c o u n s e l a n d fo ra n e x t e n s i o n o f t i me t o fi l e a c ert i fi cat e of r evi ew . M r . K i kum ur a aga i n s t at es thathe “ha s no choi ce butt o as k the C our tforan appoi nt m entof couns el w ho coul d exec ut e the cert i fi cat e of r evi ew ” bec aus e “hi s di l i gents ear chi ng fora l aw y erw as i n vai n and he i s i ndi gent , havi ng no fund[s ] t o hi r e an e xpertfora ce r t i fi cat i on. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . P19- 18, P19- 20. A ddi t i onal l y , M r . K i kum ur a compl ai ns that otherthan the “s hor tl i s t ” of a t t orney s i n the pr i s on’ s l egal offi ce di r ect or y , “the p riso n p ro v id e [ s] th e p riso n e rs n o in fo rm a tio n ” th a t w o u ld a llo w th e m to lo c a te an i ndepende ntm edi cal expert , and thus he “i s depr i ved of a nym eani ngful m eans t o acc es s . . . t he expe r t s out s i de. ” Id . atP 19 -18–P 19 -19, P 19 -20. H e al so di s put es the i nfer ence dr aw n bythe di s tr i ctcourtthathi s fai l ur e t o fi nd an a tto rn e yim p lies th a t h is c laim s la c k m e rit. M r. K ik u m u ra a ttribu tes h is in a b ili ty t o fi nd a l aw y ert o the fa ctt hathe i s “a pr i s oner , ” and thi s i s a “pr o bono cas e, and nota cl as s act i on. ” Id. atP 19 -19. F i nall y , M r. K i ku m ura ar gu es that unl essT he D efen dan t s ar gu e t hat M r. K i ku m ura w ai ved his du e process 15 arg u m en t byfa il ing to raise itb efo re the m ag istrate jud g e. T h e d istri ct co u rt r ecogni zed thatM r . K i kum ur a’ s cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o the ce r t i fi cat e of r evi ew r equi r ementappea r ed “[ f] ort he fi r s tt i m e” i n hi s obj ect i ons t o the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons , and ther efor e di d notaddr es s t he due p ro c e s s is s u e in its d e n o v o re v ie w o f th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e c is io n . O rd e r 2 , 3 . N onethel es s , the di s tr i ctcourtcons i der ed ( and deni ed) t he due pr oces s obj ect i on on i t s m er i t s i n connec t i on w i th w hati tcal l ed a “ new l y - fi l ed mot i on befor e [the di s tr i ctcourt ] ” forappoi nt m entof couns el and an e xt ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a c e rtific a te o f

re v iew . O rd e r 4

– 5 . C o n se q u e n tly , the d u e p ro c e ss a rg u m e n t is p ro p e rl yp re s e n te d to u s o n a p p e a l.

- 61- h e i s a p p o i n t e d a n a t t o r n e ya n d a l l o we d mo r e t i me t o fi l e a c e r t i fi c a t e o f r e v i e w, appl y i ng C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 20- 602 t o hi s cas e “w oul d r es ul ti n fundament al unfai rnes s i m pi ngi ng on pl ai nt i ff’ s due pr oces s r i ght s . ” Id . atP19- 20 ( ci t i ng McC arthy v. Wei nb erg , 7 5 3 F . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 )). 15 W e bel i eve thatM r . K i kum ur a has r ai s ed a non- tr i vi al cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o t he appl i cat i on of C ol or ado’ s cert i fi cat e of r evi ew r equi r ementas appl i ed i n thi s cas e. A tthe s ame t i m e, how ever , t he r ecor d bel ow i s i ns uffi ci ent forus t o eval uat e M r . K i kum ur a’ s due pr oces s ar gum enton appea l . T her e i s no evi dence r egar di ng how a maxi m um s ecur i typr i s oneratA D X w oul d go about obt ai ni ng the opi ni on of a medi cal experton hi s cas e, how l ong thi s w oul d t ake, oreven w hetheri ti s fea s i bl e. T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s obs ervat i on thatC ol o. R ev. S t at . § 1 3-20-60 2 “ap pli es t o all l i t i gan t s pro se orotherw i s e, w hethera pr i s oner ornot , ” O r der5, does notaddr es s t he cor e of M r . K i kum ur a’ s cl ai m , w hi ch i s t hat th e c e rtific a te o f

re v iew re q u ire m e n t “u n c o n stitu tio n a llyh in d e r[ s]” h is “ a c c e ss to- 62-

the court [s ] ” and ther efor e vi ol at es hi s “due pr oces s r i ght s . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . P19- 18. A s the Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n B oddi e v. C onnect i cut , 401 U . S. 371 (1 9 7 1 ), “a sta tu te o r a ru le m a yb e h e ld c o n stitu tio n a llyin v a lid a s a p p lied w h e n it o p e ra tes to d e p riv e a n in d iv id u a l o f a p ro tec ted rig h t alth o u g h its g e n e ra l v a lid ity as a meas ur e ena ct ed i n the l egi t i m at e exe r ci s e of s t at e pow eri s bey ond ques t i on. ” Id . at 37 9 . O n rem an d , the d istri ct co u rtsh o u ld co n d u ct a m o re tho rough i nq uiryi nto the fa ctual and l egal bases of M r. K i ku m ura’ s due p rocess chal l enge t o C ol o. R ev. St at . § 13- 20- 602. I tm ayal s o r econs i deri t s deni al of M r. K ik u m u ra ’s m o tio n fo r a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to file a c e rtific a te o f re v iew in lig h t o f th e d u e p ro c e s s c o n c e rn s im p lic a te d b ys u c h a d e n ia l.

E. Th e Re ma i n i n g F TC A Cl a i ms 1. N egl i gent M i s repre s ent at i on W h e n th e C o r r e c t i o n a l O ffi c e r s fi r s tt o o k M r . K i k u m u r a t o t h e i n fi r m a r y, theyw er e t ol d byM r . O s agi e thathe w as m al i nger i ng and ther e w as “nothi ng w r ong w i th [hi m ] . ” A m . C om pl . 19. M r . K i kum ur a al l eges t hatt hi s w as

“ n e g lig e n t m is re p re s e n ta tio n ” a c tio n a b le u n d e r t h e F T C A . Id . at18–19. B utt he U ni t ed St at es has notw ai ved i t s s over ei gn i m m uni tyfr om “[a ] nycl ai m ar i s i ng outof . . . m i s r epr es ent at i on. ” 28 U . S. C . § 2680( h) . C ons equent l y , t he di s tr i ct courtl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overM r . K i kum ur a’ s negl i gent- 63-

m i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m agai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , and w e affi r m the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e c la im . 2. N egl i gent F ai l ure t o R efer or C onsul t & O ut rageous C ondu ct M r. K ik u m u ra c laim s th a t so o n a f ter O ffice rs V a il an d S a n d e rs to o k h im fr om the i nfi r m aryback t o hi s cel l , t heys aw t hathe had “ col l aps ed on the fl oor ar ound [the] t oi l et , s ever el yvom i t i ng . . . [and] s cr eami ng ‘ hel p m e’ al l hour . ” A m . C om pl . 21. M r . K i kum ur a al l eges t hat , des pi t e the “for es eea bl e . . . gr eat r i s k of harm t o [hi m ] , ” O ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s “negl i gent l yfai l ed t o r efe ror c o n su lt [h is] e m e rg e n c ym e d ica l co n d iti o n to . . . m e d ica l p e rso n n e l w h o c o u ld tr eat[hi m ] pr om pt l yunt i l ar ound [7: 35 p. m . ] . ” Id . H i s compl ai ntas s er t s a r i ght of r ecove r yagai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es undert he FT C A fort he C or r ect i onal O ffi cer s ’ al l eged “ negl i gentfai l ur e t o r efe rand cons ul t , ” and thei r“outr ageous conduct . ” Id . a t 2 0

– 2 1 . F o ll o w ing the m ag istrate jud g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n , the d istri ct co u rt dis m i ssed both cl ai m s for l ack o f subjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on and fai l ure t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . I tal s o di s m i s s ed the “ne gl i gentfai l ur e t o r efe rand cons ul t ” cl ai m on t he gr ound thi s w as nota cogni zabl e ca us e of a ct i on under C ol or ado l aw , and ther efor e nots ubj ectt o s ui tundert he FT C A . W e cons i der e a c h p o in t in tu rn . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s j u ri sd ict ion al ruli n g is sl igh tl ym y steri o u s. Itap p ea rs thatthe courtbas ed i t s rul i ng on ourhol di ng i n Uni t ed Stat es v. A gr oni cs Inc. ,- 64-

164 F. 3d 1343 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , w her e w e found thatthe Feder al M i ne Safe tyand H eal th A dm i nis trat i on “cann ot be hel d li able und er the F T C A for adv ers e fin an cial rep erc u ssion s resu lt ing fro m the d eterm ination o f it s o w n reg u lat o ry j ur i s di ct i on. ” Id . at1347. T he r at i onal e forourhol di ng i n A gr oni cs w as that“the F T C A ’s w a iv e r o f

so v e re ig n im m u n ityis lim ited to c o n d u c t fo r w h ich a p riv a te per s on coul d be hel d l i abl e unders t at e t or tl aw , and fe der al s t atut or ydut i es r egar di ng pecul i ar l yadmi ni s tr at i ve ac t s gener al l yi nvol ve ‘ a type of c onductthat pr i vat e per s ons coul d notengage i n, and henc e coul d notbe l i abl e forunderl ocal l aw . ’ ” Id . at1346 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( quot i ng S e a A ir Sh u ttl e , 112 F. 3d 532, 537 ( 1s tC i r . 1997) ) . A ppl y i ng A gr oni cs t o thi s cas e, the magi s tr at e j udge conc l uded thatany“dutyt hatt he [Corr ect i onal ] O ffi cer s m i ghthave t ow ar d pl ai nt i ff a r i s es sol el ybecau se of t he rel at i on shi p b et w een co rr ect i on al offi cers and plai nti ff as a pr i s oner , ” and thus i s “‘ a type of c onductthatpr i vat e per s ons coul d notengage i n. ’ ” M ag. R ec. 42, 43 ( quot i ng A gr oni cs , 164 F. 3d at1346) . “I n s uch c irc u m sta n c e s,” th e m a g istra te ju d g e fo u n d , “th e U n ited S tate s m a yn o t b e su e d in t or tunderthe FT C A . ” Id . a t 4 3 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d o p te d th is fin d in g . W e agr ee w i th M r . K i kum ur a thatthi s rul i ng “i s i n err or ” bec aus e A gr oni cs

“ is n o t ap p lica b le to [ h is] c a se .” A p p e llan t’s B r. P 1 9 -2 1 . W h e re p riso n o fficia ls ig n o re a n in m a te’ s c rie s fo r h e lp , as M r. K ik u m u ra a lleg e s, th o se p riso n o fficia ls a re n o t en g a g in g in th e so rt o f “ fe d e ra l sta tu to ryd u ties re g a rd in g p e c u liarly admi ni s tr at i ve ac t s ” thatw e w er e r efe rr i ng t o i n A gr oni cs . O u r h o ld in g in- 65-

A gr oni cs is lim ited to g o v e rn m e n t ac to rs e n g a g e d in “ ‘q u a si-le g isla tiv e ’ o r ‘q u a sij udi ci al ’ act i on, ” A gr oni cs , 1 6 4 F . 3 d at 13 4 5 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted), and thus has no bear i ng on M r . K i kum ur a’ s FT C A cl ai m s bas ed on the conduc tof O ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s . I n fac t , the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s hol di ng appea r s t o be fo r e c l o s e d b y Uni t ed Stat es v . Mu n iz , 3 7 4 U. S . 1 5 0 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , wh e r e th e S u p r e me C our thel d t hatact i ons fi l ed “unde rthe Feder al T or tC l ai m s A ctt o r ecove r damages fr om the U ni t ed St at es G overnm entforper s onal i nj ur i es s us t ai ned dur i ng confi nementi n a fe der al pr i s on, byr eas on of the negl i gence of a governm entempl oy ee . . . ar e w i thi n the purvi ew of the A ct . ” Id . a t 1 5 0 . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s sec o n d rea so n fo r dism issi n g the tw o claim s – that M r. K i kum ur a fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es – i s al s o i ncorr ect . T he co u rtap p are n tl yb ase d it s d ec isi o n o n M r. K iku m u ra’s o ri g inal ad m inistrati v e tort cl ai m fr om Sept ember2002, w hi ch fa i l ed t o m ent i on the pos s i bl e w r ongdoi ng of O fficers V ail an d S an d ers. A s the D efen d an ts co n ce d e, ho w ev er, M r. K iku m u ra corr ect ed thi s m i s t ake thr ee mont hs l at er , w hen he f i l ed a s econd a dm i ni s tr at i ve t or tcl ai m i dent i fy i ng O ffi cerV ai l and O ffi cerSander s as t or t fea s or s . T he D e fe n d a n ts th e re fo re d o n o t d e fe n d th is h o ld in g o n a p p e a l. A p p e lle e s ’ B r. 5 6 n .5 . W e c o mme n d th e De fe n d a n t s ’ c a n d o r , a n d a g r e e th a tM r . Ki k u mu r a ’ s two F TCA cl ai m s bas ed on the conduc tof O ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s cannotbe di s m i s s ed for fa ilu re to e x h a u s t a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s .- 66-

T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi nal r eas on fordi s m i s s i ng M r . K i kum ur a’ s “negl i gent fai l ur e t o r efe rorcons ul t ” FT C A cl ai m , w hi ch i s notappl i cabl e t o the “o u tr ag eo u s co n d u ct” c lai m , is th at C o lorad o d o es n o t r ec o g n ize a torto f “ fa il u re t o r e fe ro rc o n s u l t . ” Th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c o n s e n tt o b e s u e d u n d e rth e F TCA ext ends onl yt o cl ai m s ar i s i ng outof “c i r cumst ance s w her e the U ni t ed St at es , i f a pr i vat e per s on, w oul d be l i abl e t o the cl ai m anti n acc or dance w i th the l aw of the pl ace w her e the ac torom i s s i on occurr ed. ” 28 U . S. C . § 1346( b) ( 1) . T he di s tr i ct courtfound thatbeca us e C ol or ado does notr ecogni ze a gener al dutyt o “r efe ror co n su lt ” m ed ical pe rson n el w h en ev er so m eo n e a rou n d y o u b ec o m es il l, M r. K i kum ur a’ s “negl i gentfai l ur e t o r efe rorcons ul t ” cl ai m i s notcogni zabl e under th e F T C A . A s a gene r al m att er , the di s tr i ctcourti s corr ectthatC ol or ado l aw i m pos es n o d u ty“ u p o n a p e rso n to tak e a c tio n fo r th e p ro tec tio n o f a n o th e r e v e n if

it i s r eas onabl yappar entthats uch ac t i on i s nece s s aryt o pr ot ectthe otherper s on fr om i nj uryorper i l . ” So la n o v . G o ff , 985 P. 2d 53, 54 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1999) . B ut C ol or ado al s o r ecogni zes exce pt i ons t o thi s rul e. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe defe ndantow ed a l egal dut yt o hel p the pl ai nt i ff, C ol or ado court s l ook t o the fol l ow i ng fi ve fa ct or s : “( 1) t he exi s t ence of a s peci al r el at i ons hi p betw een the part i es ; ( 2) the for es eea bi l i tyof harm t o other s ; ( 3) the s oci al ut i l i tyof the d efen d an t’ s co n d u ct; (4) the m ag n itu d e o f th e b u rde n o f g u ard ing ag ains t i njury orharm ; and ( 5) t he pr act i cal cons equenc es of pl aci ng a dutyupon the- 67-

defe ndant . ” Id . “O thercons i der at i ons m ayal s o be r el evant , ” and “ [n] o one fa c to r i s c o n tr o llin g ” u n d e r t h is te s t. Taco B el l, Inc. v. Lannon , 744 P. 2d 43, 46 (C o lo . 1 9 8 7 ). U lti m a tely , C o lo ra d o c o u rts f ra m e “ th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r a d u ty s houl d be i m pos ed i n a part i cul arcas e [a s ] es s ent i al l yone of fai rnes s under c o n tem p o ra rysta n d a rd s — w h e th e r re a so n a b le p e rso n s w o u ld re c o g n ize a d u ty and agr ee thati texi s t s . ” Id . A lth o u g h C o lo ra d o c o u rts h a v e n o t y e t ad d re ss e d w h e th e r p riso n o fficia ls ow e a dutyof ca r e t o i nm at es r egar di ng thei rm edi cal needs , bas ed on Lannon , we fi nd thattheyw oul d r ecogni ze a dutyof ca r e her e. A ppl y i ng the “fai rnes s under cont empora r ys t andar ds ” t es tt o the fa ct s as al l eged byM r . K i kum ur a — in c lu d in g h is “ o b v io u s” n e e d fo r a ss ista n c e , crie s fo r h e lp , an d c o m p lete dep end encyon the p ri son st aff — w e hav e no do ub tthat “r easona ble per sons” w oul d have r ecogni zed a dut yforO ffi cer s V ai l and Sander s t o cal l the pr i s on i nfi r m aryon M r . K i kum ur a’ s behal f. T he fi ve- fac t ort es tout l i ned i n Solano rea ch es th e sa m e re su lt . T h ere is cl ea rl ya “ sp ec ial relati o n sh ip” b etw ee n M r. K iku m u ra a n d the C o rrecti o n al O fficers, si n ce , as a fe d era l i n m ate, M r. K iku m u ra is de p en d en t up o n an d u n d er the co n tr o l of A D X p ri so n an d it s staff. M o reo v er, bas ed on the al l egat i ons i n the compl ai nt , the C or r ect i onal O ffi cer s ’ i nact i on pos ed an obvi ous r i s k of harm t o M r . K i kum ur a. W e s ee ve ryl i t t l e “s oci al ut i l i ty ” i n al l ow i ng corr ect i onal offi cer s t o i gnor e an i nm at e’ s cal l s forhel p, and th e b u rd e n o f

re q u irin g th e m to c a ll th e p riso n in firm a ryis lig h t. F in a lly , w e n o te- 68-

thatther e appe art o be fe w , i f any , negat i ve “pr act i cal cons equenc es ” fr om r equi r i ng pr i s on guar ds t o cal l t he i nfi r m aryw hen i nm at es ar e i n obvi ous need of emer gencym edi cal t r eatm ent . Feder al R egul at i ons al r eadyr equi r e the B ur eau of P riso n s to “ p ro v id e fo r th e sa fe k e e p in g , ca re , an d su b sis ten c e o f a ll p e rso n s” in thei rcus t ody . 18 U . S. C . § 4042( a) ( 2) . L i kew i s e, the R es t at ement( Second) of T o rt s § 3 1 4 A (1 9 6 5 ) i m p o s e s a d u ty o n “ [ o ]n e w h o is re q u ir e d b yla w to ta k e . . . th e c u sto d yo f

a n o th e r u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s s u c h a s to d e p riv e th e o th e r o f h is no rm al op po rtun i t i es for prot ect i on , ” i ncludi ng the requ i rem ent “t o g i ve them fi rs t ai d aft eri tknow s orhas r eas on t o know thattheyar e i l l ori nj ur ed, and t o car e for them unt i l t heycan be car ed forbyother s . ” M or eover , m os ts t at es thathave c o n sid e re d th e iss u e h a v e h e ld th a t “a jaile r in c u rs a d u tyto e x e rc ise re a so n a b le car e i n pr ot ect i ng i nm at es ’ heal th and s afe ty . ” Wa lli n v . Hill , No . Ci v . A. 0 3 CV 280 W D M M J W , 2005 W L 1924663, at*10 ( D . C ol o. A ug. 10, 2005) ( col l ect i ng the ca s es ) . C ons equent l y , w e fi nd thatM r . K i kum ur a’ s “negl i gentfai l ur e t o r efe r o r co n su lt ” c lai m w o u ld b e a cti o n ab le un d er C o lorad o law , an d is th ere fo re c o g n iz a b le u n d e r t h e F T C A . S i nce M r. K i ku m ura’ s FT C A cl ai m s based o n the C orr ect i on al O ffi cers ’

“ n e g lig e n t fa ilu re to re fe r o r c o n su lt” a n d “ o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t” a re b o th p ro p e rly exhaus t ed and a ct i onabl e undert he FT C A , w e r ever s e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d is m is s in g th e s e c la im s .- 69-

3. R espo n d eat Su p eri or & F ail u re to T rain an d S u p ervis e Th e fi n a l c a u s e o f

a c t i o n a s s e r t e d i n M r . Ki k u mu r a ’ s c o mp l a i n ti s a n F TCA cl ai m bas ed on the Supervi s oryD efe ndant s ’ “negl i gent. . . fai l ur e t o pr ovi de a d e q u a te tra in in g a n d su p e rv isio n to th e ir sta ff.” A m . C o m p l. 22 . A c c o rd in g to M r . K i kum ur a, the Supervi s oryD efe ndant s ’ negl i gence w as t he “a ctual and p ro x im a te c a u s e ” o f

h is inju ri e s . Id . Si m i l art o the PL R A ’ s exhaus t i on r equi r ement , the FT C A “r equi r es t hatcl ai m s fordamages agai ns tt he governm ent be pr es ent ed t o t he appr opr i at e fe der al agenc ybyfi l i ng . . . a w r i t t en s t at ement s u ffi c i e n t l yd e s c r i b i n g th e i nj u r yt o e n a b l e t h e a g e n c yt o b e g i n i t s o wn i nves t i gat i on. ” B r adl ey v . Uni t ed Stat es ex r el . Vet er ans A dm i n. , 951 F. 2d 268, 270 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . M uch l i ke the a d m in istra tiv e g rie v a n c e s s u b m itt e d b yM r. K ik u m u ra in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is B i vens cl ai m s , the admi ni s tr at i ve t or tcl ai m s he fi l ed w i th the B O P fai l t o m ent i on the pos s i bi l i tythathi s i nj ur i es w er e ca us ed byt he i nadequa t e tr ai ni ng and su p erv isi o n o f A D X staff. F o r th e sa m e re aso n s tha t w e fo u n d M r. K iku m u ra fai l ed to exh austhis B i vens cl ai m againstt he S up ervi soryD efen dan t s, w e al so fin d that h e fail ed to ex h au st his “resp o n d ea t sup erior an d /or su p erv isory lia b ility” F T C A c la im . B ec au se w e find that the d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyd ism issed b o th o f M r. K i kum ur a’ s cl ai m s bas ed upon al l egat i ons of i nadequa t e tr ai ni ng and s upervi s i on o f A D X staff, w e a lso a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er d en y ing M r. K iku m u ra’s- 70-

m ot i on fora t empora r yr es tr ai ni ng or dert o enj oi n B O P offi ci al s fr om des tr oy i ng re c o rd s re le v a n t to th o s e tw o c la im s . I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we (1) rev erse the d ism issal of the E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim s ag ains t M r. O s agi e; (2) rev erse the d ism issal of the E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim ag ains t O fficers V ai l and S and ers ; (3 ) a ffirm th e d ism iss a l o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im a g a in st C a p tain B a u e r, C a p tain G re e n w o o d , W a rd e n P u g h , an d A ss ista n t W a rd e n B u rre ll; (4) rev erse the d ism issal of the F T C A claim s b ase d u p o n M r. O sag ie’s a lleg e d p ro fe ss io n a l n e g lig e n c e a n d o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t; (5) a ffirm the d ism issal of the F T C A claim b ase d u p o n M r. O sag ie’s al l eged ne gl i gentm i s r epr es ent at i on; ( 6) r ever s e the di s m i s s al of the FT C A cl ai m s bas ed upon O ffi cer s V ai l and S a n d e rs’ s a lleg e d n e g lig e n t fa ilu re to re fe r o r c o n su lt an d o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t; (7) a ffirm the d ism issal of the F T C A claim b ase d u p o n C ap tai n B au er, C apt ai n G r eenw ood, W ar den Pugh, and A s s i s t antW ar den B urr el l ’ s al l eged r es pondeats uper i orl i abi l i tyand negl i gentt r ai ni ng and s upervi s i on; and- 71-

( 8) aff i r m the deni al of a t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or derr equi r i ng r et ent i on of B O P r ecor ds r el at i ng t o tr ai ni ng and s upervi s i on. W e re m a n d th e c a se to th e d istric t co u rt fo r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith thi s opi ni on, i ncl udi ng the r econs i der at i on of M r . K i kum ur a’ s m ot i on for a p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l a n d a n e x te n s io n o f tim e to file a c e rt ific a te o f re v ie w . A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris is g ra n ted . A p p e llan t is rem ind ed o h h is ob li g ati o n to co n ti n u e to m ak e p arti al pa ym en ts un ti l th e e n ti re fee i s pai d.