Court Opinion

ID: 9925958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 16:02:24.478739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.550285
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380      Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        January 23, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  LEON HENDERSON ASKEW,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 23-3046
                                                    (D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03058-TC)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                   (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Leon Henderson Askew, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed the

 underlying lawsuit against the United States and several individual federal

 employees, asserting an Eighth Amendment claim for physical and sexual battery and

 Kansas state law claims for sexual assault and physical battery pursuant to the

 Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court dismissed the claims against the

 individual defendants and most of the claims against the United States, and granted

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 2

 summary judgment on the remaining claim. Mr. Askew appeals the judgment only as

 to the United States.1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                   I.     Background

       The parties stipulated to the following facts in a pretrial order. Mr. Askew

 refused to submit to handcuffs to facilitate his transfer. He barricaded himself in his

 cell and disabled the locking mechanism. Guards cut the lock and shot pepper ball

 spray into his cell before removing the barricade and entering the cell. They

 restrained Mr. Askew and escorted him to another cell for documentation and

 medical assessment. The assessment indicated that his eye was swollen. He was

 taken to another building where his clothing was cut off and he was placed in clean

 clothing. A piece of cloth attached to a shoe strap had been wrapped around his

 genitals. A Public Health Services (PHS) nurse removed the material. In doing so,

 the nurse touched Mr. Askew’s scrotum and penis. Mr. Askew was then transferred

 to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City. While there, he reported eye pain.

       Mr. Askew filed an administrative complaint alleging physical and sexual

 assault. He then filed suit in district court against the United States, the nurse, four

 correctional officers identified as John Doe defendants, and two prison employees

 who allegedly attempted to cover up the incident. Mr. Askew alleged that the nurse

       1
         The John Doe defendants were never served and Mr. Askew did not identify
 them as appellees in his notice of appeal. He filed a motion indicating that the
 United States is the only defendant. We construed the motion as a motion to
 voluntarily dismiss all appellees except the United States from the appeal, see
 Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2), and granted the motion.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 3

 sexually assaulted him while he was naked and pinned down by the four correctional

 officers, that one of the officers hit him with a blunt object, and that the other three

 attacked and punched him while he was on the ground. Mr. Askew also asserted

 claims against the district court judge who sentenced him.

        On screening, the district court dismissed the claims against the sentencing

 judge and the two individual defendants involved in the alleged cover up for failure

 to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1), and allowed the matter to proceed

 against the United States, the nurse, and the four correctional officers. The parties

 later stipulated to the dismissal of the nurse.

        Following discovery and entry of the pretrial order, the United States filed

 a combined motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment on behalf of itself

 and the John Doe defendants. The district court dismissed the claims against the

 John Doe defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of

 jurisdiction because Mr. Askew had not exhausted his administrative remedies

 against them, dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against the United States

 and the FTCA sexual assault claim under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction on

 sovereign immunity grounds, and granted summary judgment on the FTCA

 physical battery claim.2 As noted above, Mr. Askew appeals the judgment only as

        2
          Mr. Askew filed two post-judgment motions, one seeking transfer of the case
 to a different court, and another seeking to present newly discovered evidence and
 reconsideration of the order dismissing his claims. The district court denied both
 motions. Mr. Askew does not seek review of those rulings, so has waived any
 challenge he might have had. See Tran v. Trs. of State Colls. in Colo., 355 F.3d
                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380          Date Filed: 01/23/2024    Page: 4

 to the United States.3

                                II.    Standard of Review

        We recognize that because Mr. Askew represents himself, he is entitled to

 a liberal reading of his filings. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187

 (10th Cir. 2003). We thus make some allowances for deficiencies, such as unfamiliarity

 with pleading requirements, failure to cite appropriate legal authority, and confusion of

 legal theories. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840

 (10th Cir. 2005). But we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney

 in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id.

        We review de novo both the dismissal of a complaint on sovereign immunity

 grounds and the grant of summary judgment, applying the same standards that

 applied in district court. Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 2013)

 (sovereign immunity dismissal); Rocky Mountain Prestress, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Fire

 Ins. Co., 960 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 2020) (summary judgment).

        When, as here, a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity challenges

 the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s allegations concerning subject matter jurisdiction,

 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2004) (“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed
 abandoned or waived.”).
        3
          Because Mr. Askew does not appeal the judgment as to the individual
 defendants, we need not address his challenges to the district court’s dismissal of the
 claims against the John Doe defendants on exhaustion grounds, including his
 argument that exhaustion would have been futile. We note, however, that there is no
 futility exception to the exhaustion requirement. See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S.
 731, 741 n.6 (2001).
                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-3046    Document: 010110988380         Date Filed: 01/23/2024      Page: 5

 we must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Peterson, 707 F.3d

 at 1205. “However, we are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as

 a factual allegation.” Id. at 1206 (internal quotation marks omitted).

       At the summary judgment stage, we “view facts in the light most favorable to

 the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in [their] favor.” Dewitt v.

 Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 845 F.3d 1299, 1306 (10th Cir. 2017) (ellipsis and internal

 quotation marks omitted). When summary judgment in an FTCA case depends on

 the interpretation of state law, we review the district court’s interpretation and

 determination of state law de novo. Aldrich Enter., Inc. v. United States, 938 F.2d

 1134, 1138 & n.4 (10th Cir. 1991).

       To survive summary judgment, Mr. Askew had to “present some evidence”

 beyond the allegations in his complaint to support his allegations. Serna v. Colo.

 Dep’t of Corr., 455 F.3d 1146, 1151 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks

 omitted). “Unsubstantiated allegations carry no probative weight in summary

 judgment proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court

 must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute

 as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 6

                                     III.   Discussion

    A.     We decline to consider Mr. Askew’s unpreserved arguments.

         Mr. Askew raises several issues on appeal that the district court did not

 address in the dismissal order, including that (1) the United States tricked him into

 dismissing the claims against the nurse; (2) the district court improperly “inserted” an

 Eighth Amendment claim against the John Doe defendants, Aplt. Opening Br. at 9;

 (3) the court misconstrued his version of the facts in the pretrial order; (4) the United

 States did not represent his version of the facts in the pretrial order; (5) there was

 a conflict of interest between the United States and the court; and (6) the court

 failed to rule on a number of his filings. He has not provided record citations

 demonstrating that he raised these issues in district court as required by our local

 rule, see 10th Cir. R. 28.1(A) (“For each issue raised on appeal, the briefs must cite

 the precise reference in the record where the issue was raised and ruled on.”). We

 will not comb the record to determine whether he preserved these issues, see Garrett,

 425 F.3d at 840, and presume that he did not, see United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d

 1192, 1196 (10th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that absent precise record citations to where

 an issue was raised and ruled upon, an appellate court may assume an issue was not

 preserved). And because Mr. Askew does not argue for plain error review of the

 unpreserved issues, we decline to review them. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc.,

 634 F.3d 1123, 1130-31 (10th Cir. 2011).

                                             6
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 7

    B.    The district court properly dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim.

         “The concept of sovereign immunity means that the United States cannot be

 sued without its consent,” and courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over a

 claim against the United States unless sovereign immunity has been waived. Iowa

 Tribe of Kan. & Neb. v. Salazar, 607 F.3d 1225, 1232 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal

 quotation marks omitted). A waiver “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory

 text,” and “will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.”

 Id. at 1236 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, to survive dismissal of his

 Eighth Amendment claim against the United States on sovereign immunity grounds,

 Mr. Askew needed to establish that the United States has waived its sovereign

 immunity with respect to that claim. See id. at 1232. It was impossible for him to do

 so, because the law is clear that the United States has not waived immunity from suit

 for constitutional claims for damages.

         A plaintiff can bring a claim for money damages against individual federal

 officers for an Eighth Amendment violation under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

 Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Carlson v. Green,

 446 U.S. 14, 18-20 (1980). But a Bivens action “may not be brought directly against

 the United States,” Farmer v. Perrill, 275 F.3d 958, 963 (10th Cir. 2001), which is

 immune from suit for constitutional claims for damages, see FDIC v. Meyer,

 510 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1994). And Mr. Askew’s assertion of an FTCA claim does not

 save his Eighth Amendment claim against the United States, because although the

 FTCA allows some state tort claims to be asserted against the United States, it does

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-3046    Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 8

 not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity from suit for constitutional tort

 claims. See id. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Mr. Askew’s

 Eighth Amendment claim against the United States.

    C.    The district court properly dismissed the FTCA claims.

         Mr. Askew asserted FTCA claims against the United States for sexual assault

 based on the nurse having touched his genitals, and for battery based on the

 correctional officers’ alleged attack on him. He sought relief for physical injuries

 and mental and emotional trauma. The district court dismissed the sexual assault

 claim and granted summary judgment on the battery claim, concluding that the

 United States was immune from liability on both claims. The court also concluded

 that Mr. Askew could not recover damages for mental and emotional trauma because

 his physical injuries were de minimis and he was not the victim of a sexual act.

 Mr. Askew takes issue with each of those rulings.

         1. The district court correctly dismissed the sexual assault claim.

         The FTCA waives sovereign immunity for some actions against the United

 States stemming from injuries caused by the wrongful acts of its employees while

 acting in the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). This waiver

 does not apply to claims for assault and battery unless the acts complained of were

 committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States.”

 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). An investigative or law enforcement officer is “any officer of

 the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or

 to make arrests for violations of Federal law.” Id. Section 2680(h) thus preserves the

                                            8
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380         Date Filed: 01/23/2024    Page: 9

 government’s sovereign immunity from liability for assault and battery claims arising

 from the conduct of employees who do not fit this definition. See Millbrook v.

 United States, 569 U.S. 50, 52-53 (2013).

        In the pretrial order, the parties stipulated that, as a PHS officer, the nurse was

 “not empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrest[s]

 for violation of federal law,” and was “not a law enforcement officer.” R. at 224.

 Based on that stipulation, the district court concluded that the nurse was not an

 investigative or law enforcement officer under § 2680(h) and that the United States

 was therefore immune from liability for the nurse’s alleged sexual assault on

 Mr. Askew. The court thus dismissed the sexual assault claim for lack of

 jurisdiction. See Dry v. United States, 235 F.3d 1249, 1257-58 (10th Cir. 2000).

        On appeal, Mr. Askew provides a factual narrative regarding the alleged

 sexual assault and the emotional and mental trauma it caused. But his brief does not

 explain why the district court’s reason for dismissing the claim was wrong, and he

 points to no evidence establishing that the nurse was acting as an investigative or law

 enforcement officer. Mr. Askew’s factual narrative is not a “substitute for legal

 argument,” and because he has failed to show any reversible error, we affirm the

 district court’s dismissal of this claim. Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d

 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of claim where appellant’s brief

 failed to challenge the basis for the district court’s ruling).

                                              9
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 10

        2. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the battery
           claim.

        Under the FTCA, Congress granted a “limited waiver of sovereign immunity”

  by “making the Federal Government liable to the same extent as a private party for

  certain torts of federal employees.” United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813

  (1976). Liability may arise for physical injuries caused by the wrongful acts of

  federal employees only “under circumstances where the United States, if a private

  person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where

  the act . . . occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). This requires application of “relevant

  state law.” Stokes v. United States, 967 F.3d 1034, 1037-38 (10th Cir. 2020). Here,

  the events occurred in Kansas and the parties agree that Kansas law governs

  Mr. Askew’s claim.

        Under Kansas law, civil battery is “the unprivileged touching or striking of one

  person by another, done with the intent of bringing about either a contact or an

  apprehension of contact that is harmful or offensive.” McElhaney v. Thomas,

  405 P.3d 1214, 1219 (Kan. 2017) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted);

  see Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5413(a). By statute, law enforcement officers may use

  reasonable force to make an arrest. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5227(a). The statute

  provides a defense to officers in a civil lawsuit. Dauffenbach v. City of Wichita,

  8 Kan. App. 2d 303, 310 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983) (applying predecessor statute).

  The statutory right to use reasonable force also applies to correctional officers in

  “maintaining security, control, and discipline in a correctional institution.”

                                             10
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380         Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 11

  Kan. Admin. Regs. § 44-5-106(a) (incorporating predecessor statute by reference).

  Thus, a correctional officer “has discretion to determine the degree of force required

  under the circumstances as they appear to the officer at the time,” and “[t]he degree

  of force used may be reasonable even though it is more than is actually required,” as

  long as the officer does not use “an unreasonable amount of force or wantonly or

  maliciously injure” someone. Dauffenbach, 8 Kan. App. 2d at 308.

         In support of its motion for summary judgment, the government submitted a

  video of the incident and declarations from the nurse and each of the correctional

  officers describing the incident. The video shows that Mr. Askew had barricaded

  himself in his cell and refused the officers’ orders to submit to handcuffs for transfer.

  After he tried to hit the officers through the cell bars, they sprayed gas into the cell

  and used a ram to push him away from the door. When they entered, they restrained

  him and led him out of the cell. After the nurse physically examined him, he was put

  in a wheelchair and pushed to a different building, where the officers carried him to a

  room and removed his clothes. The nurse removed the materials wrapped around

  Mr. Askew’s genitals,4 and the officers dressed him in clean clothes. Throughout the

  incident, the officers asked Mr. Askew to cooperate voluntarily before resorting to

  any use of force. The video does not show any guards hitting Mr. Askew, either with

  their fists or with any other objects.

         4
         In his deposition, Mr. Askew testified that he had wrapped the materials
  around his genitals sometime before the incident.

                                              11
Appellate Case: 23-3046      Document: 010110988380      Date Filed: 01/23/2024       Page: 12

        In opposing summary judgment, Mr. Askew insisted that “ALL these

  defendants lied” in their declarations, R. at 505, but he presented no factual or

  evidentiary support for that contention. He did not dispute the accuracy of the video,

  and he presented no evidence beyond the allegations in his complaint that the officers

  used unreasonable force.

        Mr. Askew had the burden of proving sovereign immunity has been waived,

  see James v. United States, 970 F.2d 750, 753 (10th Cir. 1992), and, having reviewed

  the video and other summary judgment evidence, we agree with the district court’s

  conclusion that he failed to meet his burden. The video shows that the officers

  used reasonable force to maintain order, as permitted under Kansas Administrative

  Regulations § 44-5-106(a), so would not be liable for battery under Kansas law.

  Accordingly, the United States could not be held liable for their actions under the

  FTCA, and was entitled to summary judgment. See Ayala v. United States, 49 F.3d

  607, 610 (10th Cir. 1995) (holding that “the government is not liable under the FTCA

  unless state law recognizes a comparable liability for private persons”); see also Scott

  v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (holding that defendant in civil rights excessive

  force case was entitled to summary judgment where the plaintiff’s version of events

  was “blatantly contradicted” by a video of the incident).

        Finally, having upheld the district court’s conclusion that the United States

  was immune from liability on both of Mr. Askew’s tort claims, we need not address

  its determination that he could not recover damages for mental and emotional trauma

  he claims to have suffered as a result of the conduct giving rise to those claims

                                             12
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380        Date Filed: 01/23/2024     Page: 13

  because his physical injuries were de minimis and he was not the victim of a sexual

  act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(2) (“No person convicted of a felony who is

  incarcerated . . . while serving a sentence may bring a civil action against the United

  States or . . . any employee of the Government for mental or emotional injury

  suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury or the

  commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18”). We thus do not

  consider Mr. Askew’s argument that his physical injuries were more than de minimis,

  or the government’s argument about whether § 1346(b)(2)’s incorporation of the

  definition of “sexual act” in § 2246, see 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2), also incorporates

  § 2246’s definition of “sexual contact,” see id. § 2246(3), for purposes of the

  limitation on recovery for mental and emotional injuries.

     D.     The district court did not violate Mr. Askew’s right to due process.

          In upholding the district court’s judgment, we reject Mr. Askew’s argument

  that the court violated his right to due process by dismissing his claims “outside of

  the scheduling order set forth in the pre-trial order” and “before and absent of

  notifying [the] parties.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 6.

          The pretrial order put Mr. Askew on notice that the United States “will file a

  summary judgment motion,” and that the case could be decided on the dispositive

  motions without a trial. R. at 235. Contemporaneously with the filing of its motion,

  the government mailed a notice to Mr. Askew informing him the motion “asked the

  Court to decide this case without a trial, based on written materials, including

  affidavits, submitted in support of the motion.” R. at 497. The notice explained that

                                             13
Appellate Case: 23-3046     Document: 010110988380          Date Filed: 01/23/2024      Page: 14

  Mr. Askew could “not oppose summary judgment simply by relying upon the

  allegations in [his] complaint,” id., and that if he did not respond to the motion

  “with affidavits and/or documents contradicting the material facts asserted by the

  defendants, the court may accept defendants’ facts as true, in which event [the]

  case may be dismissed and judgment entered in defendants’ favor without a trial,”

  id. at 498. Mr. Askew filed a response in opposition to the motion, which the district

  court considered in ruling on the motion. He thus had notice and adequate

  opportunity to submit evidence in opposition to the government’s motion. The fact

  that the district court set a trial date in the pretrial order does not mean it was

  required to hold a trial—judicial efficiency is served when a district court schedules a

  trial but also entertains dispositive motions that may obviate the need for trial. Nor

  was the court required to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Geear v.

  Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir. 1988). Instead, “the parties’ right

  to be heard may be fulfilled by the court’s review of the briefs and supporting

  affidavits and materials submitted to the court.” Id.

                                      IV.    Conclusion

         We affirm the district court’s judgment. We grant Mr. Askew’s motion for

  leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs. We deny his “Motion for

  Leave to Proceed Outside Any Time Barred Limitations/Motion to Appoint Special

                                              14
Appellate Case: 23-3046   Document: 010110988380       Date Filed: 01/23/2024   Page: 15

  Counsel” and his motions for court-appointed counsel and for leave to present newly

  discovered evidence.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Jerome A. Holmes
                                            Chief Judge

                                          15