FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 18, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
DONALD ALTON HARPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-1342
(D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00750-REB-KMT)
P. URBANO, P.A.; NORMAN S. (D. Colo.)
ROSENTHAL, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, HOLLOWAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Donald Alton Harper appeals the dismissal of his pro se prisoner suit in
which he alleged Eighth Amendment violations stemming from an injury
sustained while working at his prison job. According to the amended complaint,
Mr. Harper fractured his ankle when he slipped and fell in the prison’s kitchen
warehouse. He alleged that prison officials failed to properly treat him in a
*
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)(2); 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
timely manner and claims to now suffer permanent impairment to his ankle due to
defendants’ deliberate indifference and negligence in treating his injury.
Construing the allegations as a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the district court
initially dismissed several defendants who are not parties to this appeal. The
court then referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who recommended that the
claim against the remaining defendants (appellees), be dismissed. Adopting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court held that it
lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Harper’s Bivens claim because the Inmate Accident
Compensation Act (“IACA”), 18 U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4), provides the exclusive
remedy for prisoners injured on the job and thus barred Mr. Harper’s Bivens
claim. 1
Following the district court’s dismissal, we held in Smith v. United States,
561 F.3d 1090, 1103 (10th Cir. 2009), that the IACA does not bar an inmate’s
1
18 U.S.C. § 4126(c)(4) provides:
[Federal Prison Industries], in accordance with the laws generally
applicable to the expenditures of the several departments, agencies,
and establishments of the Government, is authorized to employ the
[Prison Industries Fund], and any earnings that may accrue to the
corporation . . . in paying . . . compensation to inmates employed in
any industry, or performing outstanding services in institutional
operations, and compensation to inmates or their dependents for
injuries suffered in any industry or in any work activity in connection
with the maintenance or operation of the institution in which the
inmates are confined.
-2-
Bivens claim. We explained that the IACA “does not explicitly foreclose the
Bivens remedy, there is very little deterrent effect for constitutional harms within
the [IACA], and there is no alternative forum where the alleged constitutional
violation could be addressed.” Id. On appeal, appellees recognize that Smith
governs our analysis and that the district court’s basis for dismissing Mr. Harper’s
claim cannot be upheld. Nevertheless, they urge us to affirm the district court on
the alternate ground that Mr. Harper failed to establish a valid Eighth Amendment
claim. They assert he has failed to allege facts sufficient to show that they knew
of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction de novo and its findings of jurisdictional fact for clear error. 2 Butler
2
Although the district court dismissed Mr. Harper’s prisoner complaint
under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, this was error. In a
footnote in Smith, we stated:
Defendants contended that whether a Bivens remedy was
available to Smith was a matter of subject matter
jurisdiction, and the district court apparently agreed. As
we have previously stated, however, whether a court
should imply a Bivens remedy is not a question of subject
matter jurisdiction. Peoples v. CCA Det. Ctrs., 422 F.3d
1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2005), vacated in part on other
grounds on reh’g en banc, 449 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2006).
“In fact, there is no power to imply a Bivens cause of
action unless a court has first satisfied itself that
jurisdiction exists.” Id. Thus, the district court had
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to consider
(continued...)
-3-
v. Kempthorne, 532 F.3d 1108, 1110 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 952
(2009). Although we have discretion to affirm the district court on any ground
adequately supported by the record, so long as the parties had an opportunity to
address that basis, United States v. Sandia, 188 F.3d 1215, 1217 (10th Cir. 1999),
we think the better approach in this case is to allow the district court to consider
Mr. Harper’s Bivens claim in the first instance. See Hoiles v. Alioto, 461 F.3d
1224, 1236 (10th Cir. 2006). The court’s purported jurisdictional ruling
prevented it from making any findings pertaining to Mr. Harper’s factual
allegations, and thus remand is appropriate. See R. Eric Peterson Constr. Co. v.
Quintek, Inc. (In re R. Eric Peterson Constr. Co.), 951 F.2d 1175, 1182 (10th Cir.
1991) (invoking the general rule that “a federal appellate court does not consider
an issue not passed upon below” (quotation omitted)).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is REVERSED, and this case is
REMANDED for further consideration of Mr. Harper’s Bivens claim in light of
our decision in Smith, 561 F.3d at 1103. Mr. Harper’s motion to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and he is reminded of his continuing
obligation to make partial payments towards his filing fee until it is paid in full.
2
(...continued)
Smith’s Eighth Amendment claims.
561 F.3d 1090, 1100 n.10 (10th Cir. 2009).
-4-
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Any outstanding requests for relief are DENIED as
moot.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-5-