Facteau v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1473,87-1473 |
| Parties | Arthur R. FACTEAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George E. SULLIVAN, Individually and in his official capacity as P.N.M. Warden; Wilfred Romero, Individually and in his official capacity as Maj. P.N.M., North Facility, Defendants- Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Arthur R. Facteau, pro se.
William McEuen, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hal Stratton, Atty. Gen., State of N.M., with him on brief), Santa Fe, N.M., for defendants-appellees.
Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief District Judge. *
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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissing plaintiff's prison civil rights suit as barred by an ongoing class action over conditions at the same prison, Duran v. Anaya, No. 77-721 (D.N.M.), but referring plaintiff's allegations and forwarding his pleadings to the special master appointed in the latter. We construe the district court's order as a dismissal without prejudice to refiling in the event plaintiff's claims are rejected as outside the scope of the Duran class action. See generally Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d 125, 127 (11th Cir.1982); Goff v. Menke, 672 F.2d 702, 704-05 (8th Cir.1982).
The Duran class action was commenced in 1978 on behalf of all persons confined at the New Mexico State Penitentiary in Santa Fe, generally challenging the conditions of confinement there. On July 17, 1980, the Duran district court entered an order approving a consent decree that, by its terms, applied to all present and future inmates "incarcerated in the Penitentiary of New Mexico at Santa Fe or at any maximum, close, or medium security facility open for operation by the State of New Mexico after June 12, 1980." That consent order, along with the attached policy statements and previously filed partial consent decrees, reflected the parties' settlement of the disputes raised in Duran, though the district court expressly retained jurisdiction "for such time as is necessary to enforce or modify this Order and settlement with, if necessary, all appropriate orders including contempt sanctions."
Issues relating to the scope, effect, and enforcement of the consent order were later clarified by the district court in an order entered March 15, 1984. By the latter, the district court found that the Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 requirements of class definition, notice, and adequacy of representation had been satisfied and, accordingly, held its consent order to be binding on all members of the class, thus precluding collateral actions for injunctive relief relating to issues resolved therein. The March 15 order also refers to the previous appointment of a special master "to assist the Court in monitoring the state of defendant's compliance with all remedial orders," whose duties are "to observe, monitor, find facts, report or testify as to his findings, and make recommendations to the court concerning steps that should be taken to achieve compliance." The district court went on to state that all documents subsequently filed by class members seeking equitable relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for matters covered by the consent order would be forwarded to the special master in Duran for his initial consideration. If such documents were pleadings giving rise to separate lawsuits, those individual suits were to be dismissed in favor of the enforcement procedure already in place in Duran.
Plaintiff commenced the instant Sec. 1983 action for injunctive relief on February 20, 1987, seeking modification of present policy at the New Mexico State Penitentiary regarding body cavity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grayson v. K Mart Corp.
...Order were implicit in the October 28, 1994 Order as fashioned. Id. 9 We agree We find the Tenth Circuit's decision in Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318 (10th Cir.1988) particularly instructive. Arthur Facteau, an inmate, had brought a civil rights action seeking modification of a New Mexi......
-
U.S. v. Yeager
...been effectively excluded from federal court under the present circumstances.'" (alteration in original) (quoting Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir.1988))); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that "a plaintiff may......
-
McNeil v. Guthrie
...to enforce Battle. Thus, under these circumstances, petitioner has been effectively excluded from federal court. See Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir.1988). He has no alternative other than mandamus in which to seek In addition, petitioner has proven that respondent acted ......
-
Moya v. Schollenbarger
..."whether [the] plaintiff has been effectively excluded from federal court under the present circumstances," Facteau v. Sullivan, 843 F.2d 1318, 1319 (10th Cir.1988) (per curiam). If so, then our appellate jurisdiction is b. Summary of § 1291 finality principles Based on our precedent, and a......