F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 23 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JEFFREY M. YOUNG-BEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANDY SWANSON, Counselor,
United States Penitentiary,
Leavenworth; DONALD AUXIER,
Counselor, United States Penitentiary,
No. 00-3272
Leavenworth; R. TORIX, Unit
(D.C. No. 98-CV-3126)
Manager, United States Penitentiary,
(D. Kan.)
Leavenworth; JAMES W. BOOKER,
Warden, United States Penitentiary,
Leavenworth; KATHLEEN (NMN)
HAWK, Ph.D., Director of Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Washington D.C.;
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
PRISONS, Washington, D.C.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining appellant’s brief 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) and 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Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of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. 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.
Jeffrey Young-Bey filed these lawsuits for damages against a number of
prison officials and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, presumably under Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The two complaints were
ultimately consolidated in the district court. In the first action, docket number 98-
CV-3126, he alleged the officials wrongfully prevented him from attempting to
communicate with certain people, in violation of his rights under the First,
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, as well as federal civil-rights and
conspiracy statutes. (No. 98-CV-3126, doc. 1.) In the second action, docket
number 99-CV-3080, Young-Bey alleged that Defendants interfered with his
contractual relationships with other people, in violation of his constitutional
rights and federal statutes. (No. 99-CV-3080, doc. 6.)
Federal prisoners are ordinarily allowed to make telephone calls to people
on their official telephone list. See 28 C.F.R. § 540.101(a). When a prisoner
submits a name for the list, he is representing that to the best of his knowledge,
that person is agreeable to receiving telephone calls from him. See id.
§ 540.101(a)(1). If a prisoner seeks to add a person who is not immediate family
or on his visiting list, the prison will ordinarily advise the potential recipient of
the prisoner’s telephone calls that “the recipient’s number will be removed from
the list if the recipient makes a written request to the institution.” Id.
§ 540.101(a)(2). The record of administrative appeals in this case shows that the
-2-
prison removed one person 1 from Young-Bey’s approved telephone list at that
person’s request and ordered Young-Bey not to submit future requests to call that
person. (No. 98-CV-3126, doc. 11, attach. 1.) When Young-Bey nevertheless
submitted such a request, he was disciplined. (Id.) Under the authority of Van
Woudenberg ex rel. Foor v. Gibson, 211 F.3d 560, 568 (10th Cir. 2000), the
district court took judicial notice of this and other information from Young-Bey’s
related habeas case. (No. 98-CV-3126, doc. 36, at 3-4.)
The district court granted Young-Bey’s motion to have the U.S. Marshal
appointed for service of process. (No. 98-CV-3126, doc. 27, at 2; No. 99-CV-
3080, doc. 19, at 3.) In a second order, the district court dismissed the statutory
claims (other than the civil-rights claims) as frivolous and the rest of the claims
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (No. 98-CV-3126,
doc. 36, at 5-6.)
Young-Bey raises two issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court
violated the law-of-the-case doctrine by dismissing his complaint after ordering
service on Defendants. We note first that the district court’s order appointing the
U.S. Marshal did not direct service of process on Defendants; in one of the
orders, the court specifically noted that it was granting Young-Bey’s motion
1
The record is sealed, and in an abundance of caution we have chosen not
to identify this person.
-3-
“subject to the court’s finding that service is appropriate in this action.” (No. 99-
CV-3080, Doc. 19, at 3.) Further, the second order did not “reconsider[]” or
“over-rule[]” the earlier order, as Young-Bey asserts. (Opening Brief at 2.)
Finally, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss a complaint “at any
time” if it fails to state a claim, regardless of whether the defendants have been
served. We therefore find no error on this issue.
Second, Young-Bey argues that the court erred in dismissing his complaint.
We review the dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. See Hunt v. Uphoff,
199 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 1999). We review the dismissal of a claim as
frivolous for abuse of discretion. See Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779
(10th Cir. 1997).
A regulation that infringes on Young-Bey’s constitutional right to
communicate with people outside the prison is valid if it is “reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). We
agree with the Eleventh Circuit that “[r]eduction of criminal activity and
harassment qualifies as a legitimate governmental objective.” Pope v. Hightower,
101 F.3d 1382, 1385 (11th Cir. 1996). The federal regulation is well-tailored to
advance this objective by allowing potential recipients of prisoners’ telephone
calls to block communication from a prisoner. Similar reasoning governs the
-4-
alleged restriction of Young-Bey’s mail privileges. For substantially the reasons
stated by the district court, we AFFIRM its dismissal of the complaints. 2
We GRANT Young-Bey’s motion to seal the file on appeal. We remind him
of his obligation to continue making partial payments of appellate costs and fees
until paid in full.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
We express no view on the district court’s alternative suggestion that these
2
lawsuits would be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
-5-