Smith v. United States ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 11 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DARRYL J. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
JANET RENO, Attorney General;
KATHLEEN HAWK, Director of the
B. O. P.; JOEL KNOWLES, Warden No. 02-1172
of USP-Florence; TERRY D.C. No. 99-N-2107
FINNEGAN, Hospital Administrator, (D. Colorado)
USP-Florence; DAVID REITER,
Assistant Hospital Administrator;
ROBERT WILLIAMS, Director of
Medical Services; T. GARCIA,
Physician Assistant; V.
HERNANDEZ, Physician Assistant;
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; D.C.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
MARGARRETT MOORE, Director;
and VINCENT GIBBONS, Warden of
Central Facility,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the 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 is a pro se federal prisoner civil rights appeal of claims brought
against fourteen federal employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346; Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and unspecified Colorado state law. Appellant
Smith was injured while incarcerated at the Lorton Correctional Institution which
is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections for the District of
Columbia. The injury resulted in paraplegia with paralysis from the T-7 vertebrae
down. While at Lorton, Mr. Smith received therapy which he alleged helped him
to regain feeling to the extent that he could stand and walk with the assistance of
a walker and long leg braces. When Mr. Smith was transferred to the Bureau of
Prisons on November 18, 1995, the therapy stopped. Mr. Smith’s condition
deteriorated resulting in his need for a wheelchair. Mr. Smith further alleged that
on July 23, 1997, agents of the United States confiscated his wheelchair and
destroyed his long leg braces.
The magistrate judge’s report recommended that Defendants’ motion to
-2-
dismiss be granted because Appellant failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies for his Bivens claim and because his FTCA claim is time-barred. After
considering Appellant’s objections, the district court accepted the
recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. This appeal followed.
After a thorough review of the briefs and the record, we agree with the
final disposition of the district court. Appellant failed to properly exhaust his
administrative remedies for his Bivens claim. Appellant submitted requests to the
Warden, and then he submitted new requests to the Regional Director instead of
submitting appeals to the Regional Director. Appellant never appealed these
requests to the Director, National Inmate Appeals.
Appellant’s FTCA claim is similarly deficient. Appellant did not file his
FTCA claim within six months of receiving notice of the denial of his claim by
the agency (North Central Region, Kansas City, Kansas) as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2401(b).
Even though we must affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s
complaint, we take this opportunity to note that the deprivations alleged in the
complaint, if true, appear to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of the Eighth Amendment. Appellant alleges that he was deprived of appropriate
medical treatment and equipment and was caused to suffer wanton, prolonged,
unnecessary pain. The continued deprivation of Appellant’s wheelchair and leg
-3-
braces seems, to this court, to cause Appellant additional undue pain and
hardship. Additionally, Appellant details many other alleged hardships on pages
nine through eleven of his brief. On receipt of this Order and Judgment, were
Appellant to address a new complaint to the Warden, appeal to the Regional
Director, and then appeal to the Director, National Inmate Appeals, following the
procedures detailed on page eight of the magistrate judge’s report, he could
possibly exhaust his administrative remedies and eventually bring a new Bivens
action in the district court. Additionally, Appellant is free to file a new FTCA
application with the appropriate agency and then, if denied, file his FTCA claim
with the district court within six months as required by the statute.
We take no position on the merits of Appellant’s complaint as further
factual development would be necessary. We need not decide at this time the
applicability of the continuing wrong doctrine to Appellant’s FTCA claim until
the issue is properly before us.
The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s “Official
Complaint” is DENIED. Appellant’s motion to proceed without prepayment of
the appellate filing fee is GRANTED. He must continue making partial payments
on court fees and costs previously assessed until such have been paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-