Barrett v. Pearson , 355 F. App'x 113 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    October 26, 2009
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    KENNETH EUGENE BARRETT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                 No. 09-7030
    (D.C. No. 6:06-CV-00299-RAW-SPS)
    CHARLES PEARSON, Muskogee                           (E.D. Okla.)
    County, Oklahoma Sheriff;
    RAYMOND BARNES, Muskogee
    County Detention Center
    Administrator; MARTIN LANG,
    Muskogee County Detention Center
    Security Supervisor; COURTNEY
    BURKE, Muskogee County Detention
    Center Personnel; BILL THOMPSON,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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    not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
    Kenneth Eugene Barrett, a federal prisoner appearing pro se and in forma
    pauperis, appeals from the district court’s March 19, 2009, Opinion and Order
    dismissing his complaint without prejudice as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i). See R., Vol. 1, Doc. 87. Having reviewed the parties’
    materials and the record on appeal in light of the governing law, we also dismiss
    this appeal as frivolous and assess two strikes under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). See
    Jennings v. Natrona County Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 
    175 F.3d 775
    , 780 (10th Cir.
    1999).
    I. Procedural History
    Mr. Barrett was arrested on September 24, 1999, after he initiated a gun
    battle with state and federal law enforcement officers attempting to execute a
    no-knock search warrant at his residence. Mr. Barrett fired at the officers, killing
    Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer Rocky Eales. In February 2004, Mr. Barrett
    was convicted on state charges of manslaughter in the first degree and assault and
    battery with a dangerous weapon. R., Vol. 1, Doc. 75, Exs. 2, 4. He was
    sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years’ and ten years’ imprisonment,
    respectively. 
    Id.
    In October 2004, Mr. Barrett was transferred to the Muskogee County
    Detention Center (“MCDC”) pending trial on capital federal charges related to the
    same underlying events, and he was housed at MCDC until February 28, 2006,
    -2-
    approximately sixteen months. 
    Id.,
     Doc. 75, at 2 ¶ 5. During his incarceration at
    MCDC, Mr. Barrett filed suit pro se and in forma pauperis under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     against defendant Raymond Barnes, MCDC Administrator. See Barrett v.
    Barnes, No. 6:05-cv-00328-RAW-SPS. Mr. Barrett asserted that he was entitled
    to monetary damages because defendant Barnes had violated his constitutional
    rights by denying him “access to a law library and copies of his legal work.”
    R., Vol. 1, Doc. 1, Ex. A at 1. The district court dismissed Mr. Barrett’s amended
    complaint without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust administrative
    remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e,
    which Mr. Barrett was required to plead in his complaint according to Tenth
    Circuit precedent at that time. R., Vol. 1, Doc. 1, Ex. A at 1-2. We affirmed the
    dismissal on appeal because Mr. Barrett had failed to successfully allege
    exhaustion of administrative remedies in his amended complaint, as required by
    Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of America, 
    403 F.3d 1134
    , 1139 (10th Cir.
    2005). Barrett v. Barnes, 184 F. App’x 735, 736-37 (10th Cir. 2006). 1
    1
    Fitzgerald has subsequently been overruled to the extent it held that “under
    § 1997e, exhaustion was a pleading burden that falls on the plaintiff, and a
    complaint that fails to allege the requisite exhaustion of remedies is tantamount to
    one that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fitzgerald,
    
    403 F.3d at 1139
     (quotations omitted). In Jones v. Bock, 
    549 U.S. 199
     (2007), the
    Supreme Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the PLRA is
    an affirmative defense that “need not be pled in the complaint, but must be
    alleged in the answer.” See Allen v. Zavaras, 
    568 F.3d 1197
    , 1200 (10th Cir.
    2009) (discussing Jones, 
    549 U.S. at 212, 214, 216
    ).
    -3-
    In July 2006, Mr. Barrett, now a federal prisoner after being convicted on
    the federal charges, filed this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
    of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), to cure the pleading
    defect in his prior suit. R., Vol. 1, Doc. 1, at 1. Mr. Barrett again asserted that
    Mr. Barnes had violated his constitutional right of access to the courts, id. at 1, 5,
    but he also added other defendants and claims, see generally id., Doc. 1. He
    again moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. Id.,
    Docs. 2, 4. The case proceeded, and Mr. Barrett began making installment
    payments toward the filing fee. In August 2007, however, Mr. Barrett moved to
    rescind the filing fee, arguing based on a decision from the Sixth Circuit that this
    Bivens case was the same as the prior § 1983 case that was dismissed, and he
    should not have to pay a second filing fee. See R., Vol. 1, Doc. 50. The district
    court denied the motion in an Opinion and Order filed on February 6, 2008,
    pointing out that there was no Tenth Circuit authority for rescinding the filing fee
    and that the Sixth Circuit case upon which Mr. Barrett relied was distinguishable.
    See id., Doc. 57, at 2 (discussing Owens v. Keeling, 
    461 F.3d 763
    , 773 (6th Cir.
    2006)).
    Proceedings in this suit continued. In July 2008, defendants moved for
    summary judgment, and Mr. Barrett filed a response. 
    Id.,
     Vol. 1, Docs. 75, 79.
    The district court entered an Opinion and Order on March 19, 2009, but instead of
    ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion, the court reviewed Mr. Barrett’s
    -4-
    five claims for relief and sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i). See R., Vol. 1, Doc. 87, at 2-8. The court reasoned
    that Mr. Barrett had failed to show that an actual injury resulted from the alleged
    denial of access to legal materials, assistance from someone trained in the law, or
    photocopies of legal materials and documents. See 
    id.
     The district court
    promptly entered a final judgment. 
    Id.,
     Doc. 88. Mr. Barrett filed this appeal.
    II. Discussion
    The district court’s disposition of this case amounts to a dismissal without
    prejudice for lack of jurisdiction due to lack of standing. See R., Vol. 1, Doc. 87,
    at 4. We have previously held that a plaintiff lacks standing to sue under
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     for an alleged denial of access to the courts if he does not
    demonstrate that the alleged denial of access “resulted in ‘actual injury’ by
    ‘frustrat[ing],’ ‘imped[ing],’ or ‘hinder[ing] his efforts to pursue a legal claim.’”
    Simkins v. Bruce, 
    406 F.3d 1239
    , 1243 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lewis v. Casey,
    
    518 U.S. 343
    , 351-53 & n.3 (1996)). A Bivens action is “the federal analogue to
    § 1983 claims[.]” Kripp v. Luton, 
    466 F.3d 1171
    , 1175 (10th Cir. 2006). As a
    result, Mr. Barrett was also required to show actual injury to establish his
    standing to sue for the alleged denial of access to the courts under Bivens. See
    Wilson v. Blankenship, 
    163 F.3d 1284
    , 1288, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 1998).
    -5-
    After defendants’ motion for summary judgment was fully briefed, the
    district court reviewed Mr. Barrett’s complaint and dismissed it as frivolous under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i). A claim is frivolous under § 1915(e) if it “lacks an
    arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325
    (1989) (citing § 1915(d), as the current § 1915(e) was previously designated).
    We review “frivolousness dismissals [under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)] for an abuse of
    discretion.” Conkle v. Potter, 
    352 F.3d 1333
    , 1335 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003). If the
    frivolousness determination turned on an issue of law, however, we review it
    de novo. 
    Id.
     We are not bound to accept Mr. Barrett’s allegations as true, but his
    “factual allegations must be weighted in [his] favor[.]” Denton v. Hernandez,
    
    504 U.S. 25
    , 32 (1992). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the district court has “the
    unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss
    those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 
    490 U.S. at 327
    .
    Mr. Barrett argues on appeal that: (1) the district court was not authorized
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e) to sua sponte dismiss his complaint as frivolous after
    the completion of discovery and after summary judgment pleadings had been
    filed, and the court should have ruled on defendants’ motion for summary
    judgment; (2) the district court erred by concluding that he had failed to show that
    an actual injury resulted from the alleged sixteen-month denial of access to legal
    materials, assistance from someone trained in the law, or photocopying of legal
    -6-
    materials and documents during his pretrial confinement at MCDC; and (3) the
    district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to rescind the district
    court filing fee for this case, which he asserts is the same action previously
    dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead exhaustion of administrative
    remedies.
    Mr. Barrett’s first argument presents a question of statutory interpretation
    that we review de novo. See Pittsburg County Rural Water Dist. No. 7 v. City of
    McAlester, 
    358 F.3d 694
    , 711 (10th Cir. 2004). We may quickly dispense with it.
    The plain language of the statute covering “[p]roceedings in forma pauperis”
    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– . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous[.]” 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i)
    (emphasis added). The district court did not exceed its authority by dismissing
    Mr. Barrett’s complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) instead of ruling on
    defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Cf. Fogle v. Pierson, 
    435 F.3d 1252
    ,
    1256, 1262 (10th Cir. 2006) (performing screening of in forma pauperis prisoner
    complaint for the first time on appeal because Ҥ 1915[(e)(2)(B)(i)] mandates the
    dismissal of a claim contained in an IFP complaint ‘at any time’ a court deems
    the complaint to be frivolous.”).
    We also reject Mr. Barrett’s arguments related to his third issue—that the
    district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to rescind the filing fee.
    -7-
    We may review this decision because “[u]nder this circuit’s precedent, a notice of
    appeal designating the final judgment necessarily confers jurisdiction over earlier
    interlocutory orders that merge into the final judgment.” AdvantEdge Bus. Group
    v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assoc., 
    552 F.3d 1233
    , 1236-37 (10th Cir. 2009). The
    district court correctly explained that no Tenth Circuit authority supports
    Mr. Barrett’s motion, and correctly explained why the Sixth Circuit’s decision in
    Owens is distinguishable. R., Vol. 1, Doc. 57, at 2. We see no error.
    Finally, in his second issue, Mr. Barrett argues that the district court erred
    in concluding that he did not sufficiently allege an actual injury in any of his
    claims. He also argues that the district court improperly relied on materials
    outside of the complaint. Based on our review of the district court’s March 19,
    2009, Opinion and Order, we cannot agree. The district court was authorized to
    take judicial “notice of judicial proceedings in other courts if they have a direct
    relation to [the] matters at issue[.]” Green v. Nottingham, 
    90 F.3d 415
    , 418
    (10th Cir. 1996) (citing St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 
    605 F.2d 1169
    ,
    1172 (10th Cir. 1979)). It is clear that when the district court referred to the
    “record” in its Opinion and Order, e.g., R., Vol. 1, Doc. 87, at 1, 5, 6, the court
    was referring either to the allegations in Mr. Barrett’s complaint or to the
    proceedings of Mr. Barrett’s other court cases attached to defendants’ motion for
    summary judgment, matters about which the district court was authorized to take
    judicial notice. Those documents support the district court’s conclusion that
    -8-
    Mr. Barrett was not prejudiced by the alleged denial of access to legal materials,
    someone trained in the law, or photocopies of legal materials and documents at
    MCDC.
    We are unpersuaded by Mr. Barrett’s arguments, and disagree with them for
    the reasons thoroughly explained by the district court in its March 19, 2009,
    Opinion and Order. Even taking into account Mr. Barrett’s pro se status and the
    liberal reading to which his pleadings and other papers are entitled, see Yang v.
    Archuleta, 
    525 F.3d 925
    , 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008), we see no abuse of discretion
    in the district court’s decision that the complaint was frivolous and should be
    dismissed. We therefore conclude that Mr. Barrett’s claims, as well as this
    appeal, are legally frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, we
    DISMISS this appeal as frivolous and assess two strikes under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (g). See Jennings, 
    175 F.3d at 780
     (“If we dismiss as frivolous the appeal
    of an action the district court dismissed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B), both
    dismissals count as strikes.”). We also VACATE the district court’s April 17,
    2009 order granting Mr. Barrett leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
    -9-
    R., Vol. 1, Doc. 93. Mr. Barrett is reminded that he must continue making
    payments toward the filing fee until it is paid in full.
    DISMISSED.
    Entered for the Court
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    -10-