McCarthy v. Maddigan, 90-3112
Decision Date | 20 September 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 90-3112,90-3112 |
Parties | John J. McCARTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. MADDIGAN, Dr. Perry; Dr. Walter, Dr. Delmuro, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John J. McCarthy, pro se.
Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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)(1); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant John J. McCarthy appeals the district court's dismissal of his civil rights claim filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 and the court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Appellant alleges that the deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs of officials of the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, violates his Eighth Amendment rights, and he seeks damages. The district court dismissed the claim without prejudice because Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons, as required by Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1045, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980). District Court Order of April 6, 1990. For the reasons cited in its first order, and because appellant failed to present any new evidence, the district court also denied appellant's motion for relief from judgment. District Court Order of April 19, 1990.
Appellant argues that the law in this circuit is unsettled as to whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in a Bivens -type action, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), where a federal prisoner seeks only money damages to redress an alleged constitutional violation. He urges us to follow certain cases from the Third and Sixth Circuits rejecting such a requirement.
The appellants in Brice v. Day argued, as does Mr. McCarthy, that the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement does not apply where damages are sought for a violation of a constitutional right. 604 F.2d at 665. One of the appellants in Brice sought monetary damages and "what other relief the court deems fair." Id. This court held that Id. at 666. Brice made clear that "this administrative consideration is not to resolve constitutional issues nor to consider damages," id. at 667, but simply to develop a factual record to assist the district court in its review.
Appellant relies principally on Muhammad v. Carlson, 739 F.2d 122 (3d Cir.1984), and Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F.2d 27 (6th Cir.1982), both of which hold that a federal prisoner seeking only money damages in a Bivens -type action need not first exhaust administrative remedies. Muhammad and Goar, however, do not state the law in this circuit. Moreover, these cases mischaracterize this circuit's holding in Brice. According to the Third Circuit, Brice held that a "federal prisoner seeking damages and other relief for overcrowded conditions must exhaust administrative remedies." 739 F.2d at 125 n. 1; cf. 688 F.2d at 29. The rule of Brice, however, is not keyed to the type of relief sought, but to the need for preliminary fact-finding. Brice does not except cases involving claims for monetary damages only.
We also disagree with the Third Circuit's assumption that the courts "may not take it upon ourselves to impose a judicially-created exhaustion requirement directed at federal prisoners." 739 at 125. Given that Bivens actions are "a creation of the judiciary," id. at 124; accord Brice, 604 F.2d at 665, it follows that the courts may, and indeed must, establish reasonable requirements for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carthy v. Madigan
...a court for disposition of a prisoner's claim on the pleadings or at summary judgment without the aid of affidavits. Pp. 149-156. 914 F.2d 1411 (CA10 1990), BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C.J.......
- Phong Thanh Nguyen v. Chertoff
-
Dodd v. Carlson
...F.2d 122, 125 (3d Cir.1984) (not requiring exhaustion); Goar v. Civiletti, 688 F.2d 27 (6th Cir.1982) (same) with McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411, 1412 (10th Cir.1990) (requiring exhaustion); Hessbrook v. McLennon, 777 F.2d 999, 1007 (5th Cir.1985) (same). We need not resolve whether ex......
-
Zink v. Quinlan, 91-3003
...not exhausted his prison administrative remedies. The district court cited two cases that are controlling here. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir.1990); Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086 (1980). Those cases demonstrated that in this cour......