Court Opinion

ID: 9926331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:00:49.636837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:41.708209
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1330     Document: 010110989112       Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 24, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  HERBERT GRAYSON HAYES,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1330
                                                  (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01718-LTB-SBP)
  JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, and                            (D. Colo.)
  JOHN DOE,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Herbert Hayes, a federal prisoner currently confined at the United States

 Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (USP Florence), filed this pro se civil rights action

 against four unnamed employees of a federal prison in California where Hayes was

 previously confined. The district court granted Hayes leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis, but later sua sponte dismissed Hayes’s complaint as legally frivolous

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hayes now appeals and seeks leave to

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-1330    Document: 010110989112        Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 2

 proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

 § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Hayes’s request to

 proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

                                             I

       On June 21, 2023, Hayes initiated these federal proceedings by filing a pro se

 motion for appointment of counsel. The magistrate judge denied that motion without

 prejudice, concluding that it was “premature because the case remain[ed] under

 initial review.” ECF No. 6.

       On August 21, 2023, Hayes filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma

 pauperis, as well as a complaint seeking money damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six

 Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

 complaint listed four “John Does” as defendants, all in their official capacities; these

 defendants, according to the complaint, were employees at the United States

 Penitentiary in Victorville, California (USP Victorville). The complaint alleged that

 on September 30, 2021, while Hayes was “preparing [him]self for [his] daily prayer

 in [his] cell,” an unknown unit officer approached him and “patted [him] down

 outside of [his] cell.” ROA at 7. After the search, Hayes entered his cell “to grab

 [his religious] books and prayer rug.” Id. The unit officer allegedly “asked to see

 [Hayes’s] religious books.” Id. Hayes “told [the unit officer] respectfully that he

 wasn’t in purification to touch [the] religious items.” Id. Hayes then walked out of

 his cell, but allegedly dropped his “religious book” on the floor as he did so. Id. As

 Hayes reached down to pick up the book, the unit officer allegedly “reached around

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1330     Document: 010110989112        Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 3

 [Hayes’s] neck while [he] was bent over and placed [him] in a rear naked [sic]

 choke.” Id. Hayes allegedly began to lose consciousness due to the choke hold, but

 nevertheless “reached down to pack [sic] up [a] weapon with his left hand . . . and

 swag [sic] in the air” but missed the unit officer and “his partner.” Id. at 9. One of

 the two officers “then pepper spray[ed]” Hayes, and Hayes responded by running into

 his cell and “put[ting] water on [his] face.” Id. Hayes alleges three to four unknown

 officers then ran into his cell and beat him until he was unconscious. Hayes was

 allegedly then “[t]ransported to the nearest hospital with severe injuries,” including

 “brain trama [sic],” and “was given a cat scan at the hospital.” Id.

       “[A]fter leaving the hospital,” Hayes allegedly returned to “a hold over cell” at

 USP Victorville and then, on September 30, 2021, “was transported to” the United

 States Penitentiary in Atwater, California (USP Atwater). Id. Hayes allegedly

 remained in a special housing unit cell at USP Atwater for over twelve months and,

 during at least some of that time, was allegedly deprived of an incident report relating

 to the incident that occurred at USP Victorville on September 30, 2021. Officials at

 USP Victorville also allegedly withheld and possibly “thr[e]w away” Hayes’s

 “personal property and trial transcript.” Id. at 8.

       The complaint also alleged, albeit somewhat cryptically, that Hayes was

 charged with using a weapon to assault the two officers at USP Victorville and that,

 in doing so, prison officials relied on “false video footage.” Id. at 9. In addition, the

 complaint alleged, without providing any detail, that Hayes was deprived “of the use

 of the law library and [an] item off commissary.” Id. at 8.

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-1330      Document: 010110989112      Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 4

       In a section titled “REQUEST FOR RELIEF,” the complaint requested

 compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 11. The complaint also “request[ed] a[n]

 injunction challenging [Hayes’s] transfer” to USP Florence because his “due process

 ha[d] been violated.” Id.

       The district court referred the case to the magistrate judge for initial

 proceedings, including a review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On

 August 30, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order recommending that Hayes’s

 complaint be dismissed as legally frivolous. In the order, the magistrate judge

 concluded that “the Bivens claims lack[ed] merit” because such claims could not be

 brought against the defendants in their official capacities. Id. at 22. “Even

 construing” the complaint “liberally as asserting the constitutional claims against the

 John Doe Defendants in their individual capacities,” the magistrate judge concluded

 that “the claims still should be dismissed because the District of Colorado [wa]s not

 the proper venue and any individual capacity Bivens claims [we]re not cognizable.”

 Id. The magistrate judge explained that the claims “[we]re premised on events

 occurring in California” and, as such, “must be raised in the appropriate court in

 California.” Id. The magistrate judge also noted that the claims asserted in the

 complaint “would require an expansion of Bivens beyond the three categories of

 claims recognized [by the Supreme Court] in Bivens [(addressing a Fourth

 Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim)],” Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S.

 228 (1979) (addressing a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim concerning gender

 discrimination), and Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (addressing an Eighth

                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-1330    Document: 010110989112        Date Filed: 01/24/2024      Page: 5

 Amendment medical treatment claim). ROA at 24. Further, the magistrate judge

 noted that “the [Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP’s)] Administrative Remedy Program [wa]s

 an adequate alternative remedy for the claims . . . Hayes [wa]s attempting to plead.”

 Id. at 24–25. As for Hayes’s request for an injunction prohibiting his transfer to USP

 Florence, the magistrate judge concluded that Hayes’s complaint did not “allege facts

 that demonstrate[d] that he ha[d] been deprived of life or property based on his

 transfer to and placement at” USP Florence. Id. at 25. The magistrate judge also

 concluded that “there [wa]s no indication that . . . Hayes’ transfer to and placement at

 [USP Florence] ha[d] subjected him to atypical and significant hardship in relation to

 the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 26. The magistrate judge therefore

 concluded that “Hayes’ transfer to and placement at [USP Florence] d[id] not

 implicate a protected liberty interest.” Id.

       Hayes filed a written response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The

 response essentially repeated the allegations in Hayes’s complaint, while adding a

 few details that were not included in the complaint. Hayes’s response did not,

 however, address the magistrate judge’s reasons for recommending dismissal of the

 complaint.

       On September 25, 2023, the district court issued an order accepting and

 adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The order dismissed Hayes’s

 complaint as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order

 also denied Hayes “leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal . . . without

 prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

                                                5
Appellate Case: 23-1330     Document: 010110989112         Date Filed: 01/24/2024         Page: 6

 appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.” Id. at 40.

 Lastly, the order “certifie[d] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from

 th[e] dismissal would not be taken in good faith.” Id.

        Final judgment was entered in the case on September 25, 2023. Hayes filed a

 timely notice of appeal and has since filed a motion with this court for leave to

 proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

                                              II

        We review the district court’s dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of discretion. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252,

 1259 (10th Cir. 2006). If the frivolousness determination turns on an issue of law,

 our review is de novo. Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333, 1335 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003).

        Section 1915 of Title 28, as its title indicates, addresses various aspects of

 “[p]roceedings in forma pauperis.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Of relevance here,

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion

 thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the

 court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious.” Id.

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

        After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the magistrate judge and

 the district court that the claims alleged in Hayes’s complaint are legally frivolous.

 To begin with, the complaint plainly alleged that the claims asserted therein were

 brought against the four defendants only in their official capacities. But, as the

 magistrate judge correctly noted, Bivens claims “can be brought only against federal

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-1330    Document: 010110989112         Date Filed: 01/24/2024      Page: 7

 officials in their individual capacities,” and “cannot be asserted directly against the

 United States, federal officials in their official capacities, or federal agencies.” Smith

 v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1099 (10th Cir. 2009).

       Further, even if we were to liberally construe the complaint as asserting claims

 against the defendants in their individual capacities, the claims themselves are not

 cognizable under Bivens.1 In recent years, the Supreme Court has severely restricted

 the availability of Bivens claims. See Silva v. United States, 45 F.4th 1134, 1138

 (10th Cir. 2022) (outlining the history of Bivens, including its “creation, expansion,

 and restriction”). In particular, in Egbert v. Rule, 596 U.S. 482, 491 (2022), the

 Supreme Court “appeared to alter the two-step Bivens framework by stating that

 ‘those steps often resolve to a single question: whether there is any reason to think

 that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.’” Silva, 45

 F.4th at 1139 (quoting Egbert, 596 U.S. at 492). The Supreme Court also

 emphasized in Egbert “that a court may not fashion a Bivens remedy if Congress has

 already provided, or has authorized the Executive to provide, ‘an alternative remedial

 structure.’” Egbert, 596 U.S. at 493 (quoting Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 137

 (2017)). In Silva, this court held that the “key takeaway” from Egbert is “that courts

 may dispose of Bivens claims for ‘two independent reasons: Congress is better

       1
         This includes Hayes’s challenge to his transfer from BOP facilities in
 California to USP Florence. Although the magistrate judge treated this claim
 separately from Hayes’s other claims, we have long treated federal prisoners’
 challenges to BOP transfer decisions as potential Bivens claims. E.g., Palma-Salazar
 v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012).
                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-1330      Document: 010110989112      Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 8

 positioned to create remedies in the [context considered by the court], and the

 Government already has provided alternative remedies that protect plaintiffs.’” 45

 F.4th at 1141 (quoting Egbert, 596 U.S. at 494).

        Notably, in Silva this court considered and rejected a Bivens claims asserted by

 another prisoner at USP Florence. In doing so, this court “focus[ed] [its] analysis on

 the alternative remedial schemes available to” the plaintiff, i.e., the “BOP’s

 Administrative Remedy Program.” Id. This court ultimately concluded “that the

 BOP Administrative Remedy Program is an adequate ‘means through which

 allegedly unconstitutional actions . . . can be brought to the attention of BOP and

 prevented from recurring.’” Id. (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61,

 74 (2001)). This court therefore held that the plaintiff’s “Bivens claim [wa]s

 foreclosed by the availability of the BOP Administrative Remedy Program to address

 his complaint.” Id. at 1142. We conclude that Hayes’s Bivens claims are foreclosed

 for the very same reason.

                                            III

        The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Hayes’s motion to proceed

 on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. Hayes is obligated to pay in full the filing

 fee for this appeal.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Mary Beck Briscoe
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            8