Crosby v. FNU LNU (1) ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of
Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 27, 2009
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
GREGORY D. CROSBY, also known as
Cosby Gregory,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-3195
v. (D. Kansas)
FNU LNU (1), Regional Director, Federal (D.C. No. 5:09-CV-03080-SAC)
Bureau of Prisons, Mid-Atlantic Regional
Office; FNU LNU (2), Regional Director,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, South Central
Regional Office; FNU LNU (3), Regional
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Southeast Regional Office; FNU LNU (4),
Regional Director, Federal Bureau of
Prisons, North Central Regional Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
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.
Gregory Crosby appeals an order of the district court dismissing without
prejudice his Bivens-based 1 civil rights complaint. In his complaint, Crosby
appears to assert, inter alia, an entitlement to a full $500 gratuity, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3624(d)(2), upon his release from federal prison. Because the factual
basis of the complaint was less than clear, and because there was serious doubt as
to the district court’s jurisdiction over certain defendants, the district court issued
an order to show cause why Crosby’s complaint should not be summarily
dismissed “because the allegations in the complaint are insufficient to state any
viable claim for relief.” Rather than clear up the ambiguities identified by the
district court in the order to show cause, Crosby responded by noting his current
inability, for a catalog of reasons, to correct the deficiencies in his complaint.
The district court responded by dismissing Crosby’s complaint without prejudice
for the reasons set out in the order to show cause.
This court has considered Crosby’s appellate filings and the entire record
and has reviewed de novo the district court’s order of dismissal. That close
review has identified no reversible error. Accordingly, the district court order of
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971).
-2-
dismissal is AFFIRMED for substantially those reasons set out in the district
court’s order of dismissal dated June 26, 2009.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-