F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
September 8, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
Y U K IK U MU R A ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-1249
A. OSAGIE; VAIL; K. SAND ERS; R.
B AU ER ; B . G REEN WO O D ;
M ICH AEL V . PUGH, G.L.
HERSHBERGER; KATHLEEN M .
HAWK,
Defendants-Appellees.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T HE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO . 03-B-236 (OES))
Yu Kikumura filed a brief, pro se.
Richard L. Gabriel (Brittany J. Nelson with him on the briefs) of Holme Roberts
& Owen LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellant in Supplemental Briefing.
Kathleen L. Torres, Assistant United States Attorney, (John W . Suthers, United
States Attorney, with her on the Answer Brief, W illiam R . Leone, United States
Attorney, with her on the Supplemental Answer Brief) Denver, CO, for
Defendants-Appellees.
Before KELLY, HE N RY, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judge.
Yu Kikumura, a federal prisoner, became severely ill one afternoon in his
cell. Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling
sick and when he w as finally taken to a doctor; a delay that M r. Kikumura
believes caused him severe injury and almost cost him his life. He filed suit in
federal court alleging various Eighth Amendment and state tort claims against a
number of different prison officials and the U nited States. The district court
dismissed the entire action, citing, among other reasons, M r. Kikumura’s failure
to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim under the Eighth Amendment,
and his failure to file a certificate of review for his medical malpractice Federal
Tort Claims Act claims. On appeal, we address several matters relating to the
Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement, the pleading standards for
an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference, Colorado’s requirement
that litigants file a certificate of review demonstrating substantial justification for
negligence claims arising out of professional malfeasance, and whether Colorado
law recognizes a cause of action against prison guards for failing to summon
medical personnel on behalf of a sick inmate.
-2-
I. BAC K GR OU N D
A. The Events Surrounding M r. K ikum ura’s Illness on July 5, 2002
Yu Kikumura, the plaintiff-appellant, is a federal prisoner housed at the
United States Penitentiary, Administrative M aximum (“ADX”), in Florence,
Colorado. M r. Kikumura, a former member of the now-defunct terrorist group
called the Japanese Red Army, was convicted on November 28, 1988, on
numerous counts of interstate transportation of explosive devices and passport
offenses, and is currently serving a 262-month sentence. See United States v.
Kikum ura, 947 F.2d 72, 73–74, 75 (3d Cir. 1991); Kikumura v. United States, 978
F. Supp. 563, 569 (D .N.J. 1997).
O n July 5, 2002, M r. K ikumura became violently ill in his prison cell. A t
approximately 2:30 p.m. he hit the panic button in his cell to call for help. The
officers on duty that afternoon, identified as Vail and K. Sanders (together, the
“Correctional Officers”), arrived at M r. Kikumura’s cell at 2:50 p.m. and
observed that he “was on his floor complaining of severe cramps, pain and
vomiting.” O riginal Compl. Ex. B-1. The Correctional Officers placed a call to
the prison infirmary to notify its staff of M r. K ikumura’s condition.
M r. Anthony Osagie, a physician’s assistant at the prison infirmary, arrived
at M r. Kikumura’s cell at 3:15 p.m. M r. Osagie’s notes indicate that he observed
M r. Kikumura “lying on the floor on his left side [making an] extreme [and]
dramatic display of pain distress.” O riginal Compl. Ex. C-3. M r. Osagie
-3-
instructed M r. Kikumura to stand up and walk with him and the Correctional
Officers to the infirmary, but M r. Kikumura “claim[ed] that he [could not] get up
because of cramps in [his] back and legs.” Id. The Correctional Officers dragged
M r. Kikumura to the infirmary by his arms.
Once they reached the infirmary, M r. Osagie told M r. Kikumura to get up
on the examination table. W hen M r. Kikumura said he w as unable to stand, M r.
Osagie accused him of being “dramatic, exaggerating.” Am. Compl. 5. After
what M r. Kikumura describes as a “perfunctory exam,” M r. Osagie concluded that
M r. Kikumura was suffering from symptoms of lactose intolerance, but otherwise
exhibited “no pathology.” A m. Compl. 5–6; Original Compl. Ex. C-4. He
prescribed M r. Kikumura “[r]eassurance and observation,” gave him
acetam inophen, and encouraged him to drink plenty of fluids. Original Compl.
Ex. C-4.
The medical records indicate that M r. Kikumura actually was suffering
from hyponatraemic encephalopathy, a serious medical condition caused by low
sodium levels in the blood. 1 M r. Kikumura had been on a “no salt” diet for the
1
See Part 10.1: Life-Threatening Electrolyte Abnormalities, 112 Circulation
IV-121, IV-123 (2005). The symptoms of hyponatraemic encephalopathy include
headaches, nausea, vomiting, confusion, seizures, respiratory arrest, and non-
cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. M ichael L. M oritz & J. Carlos Ayus, The
Pathophysiology and Treatment of Hyponatraemic Encephalopathy: An Update,
18 Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2486, 2486 (2003). These symptoms
“are largely caused by brain oedema from movement of water into the brain.” Id.
(continued...)
-4-
previous three months. M em. in Support of Original Compl. 2. And, on July 2,
2002, three days before he fell ill, M r. Kikumura went for a ten-mile run in the
prison yard during “extreme hot weather, probably 100° F.,” and “drank [large
amounts of] water and sweated a lot during and after the run[].” Id. M r.
Kikumura claims that his low sodium intake and excessive consumption of fluids
were likely related to his development of hyponatremia. 2 Id. at 3.
“Symptomatic hyponatremia . . . is a medical emergency,” and “[o]nce
signs of encephalopathy are identified, prompt treatment is required in a
monitored setting.” M ichael L. M oritz & J. Carlos Ayus, The Pathophysiology
and Treatment of Hyponatraemic Encephalopathy: An Update, 18 Nephrology
Dialysis Transplantation 2486, 2489 (2003). M r. Osagie apparently failed to
recognize that M r. Kikumura was suffering from hyponatremia, and at 3:30 p.m.
he instructed the C orrectional Officers to return M r. Kikumura to his cell. M r.
Osagie’s instructions to M r. Kikumura to drink plenty of fluids was precisely the
1
(...continued)
at 2487. “Acute or symptomatic hyponatremia can lead to significant rates of
morbidity and mortality.” Kian Peng Goh, M anagement of Hyponatremia, 69 Am .
Family Physician 2387, 2387 (2004).
2
See Christopher S.D. Almond et al., Hyponatremia Among Runners in the
Boston M arathon, 352 New England J. M ed. 1550, 1556 (2005) (“Excessive
consumption of fluids, as evidenced by substantial w eight gain while running, is
the single most important factor associated with hyponatremia[,] . . . which, in
rare cases, can be fatal.”).
-5-
wrong advice for a patient suffering from hyponatremia, and exacerbated his
condition.
After they dragged him back to his cell, the Correctional Officers had to lay
M r. Kikumura on his bed “because the severe pains and cramps had [left him]
unable to stand up or walk.” Am. Compl. 6. M r. Kikumura claims that soon after
he was returned to his cell his condition “rapidly deteriorated,” and he began
vomiting severely. Id. at 6. He crawled out of his bed and, “[c]ollapsing by the
toilet,” he continually attempted to drink water but would “throw it up violently
around the floor.” Id. He claims that his “untreated extreme cramps and pains
spread throughout the whole of [his] body as if imposing . . . a torture.” Id. The
pain gave “rise to psychological anguish and horror of death, as [he] was writhing
and thrashing in the waste [for] hour[s], ceaselessly screaming ‘help me,’ falling
into a confusion which was caused by the illness that was also damaging [his]
brain.” Id.
Due to the sw elling in his brain caused by the hyponatremia, M r. Kikumura
lost all memory of the remaining events of July 5, 2002 beginning sometime
between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Based on the administrative record provided to
M r. Kikumura after the incident, however, it appears that M r. Osagie did not take
M r. Kikumura to the infirmary again until sometime between 7:35 p.m. and 8:15
-6-
p.m. 3 By that time M r. Kikumura’s condition had deteriorated even further. His
medical records indicate that he “appeared to be seizing and had some blood
coming from [his] mouth.” Original Compl. Ex. C-5. He was also “combative
and would not offer [an] explanation as to what and where he hurts.” Id. M r.
Osagie started providing basic treatment to M r. Kikumura around 8:15 p.m., but
his condition only worsened. At 9:25 p.m. M r. Osagie telephoned the physician
on-call, D r. Leyba, and informed him of M r. K ikumura’s condition.
Dr. Leyba arrived at the prison infirmary at 10:20 p.m. According to D r.
Leyba’s notes, when he arrived M r. Kikumura was “in extremis,” meaning at the
point of death. Original Compl. Ex. C-26. He was thrashing around, seizing, and
gasping for air. Dr. Leyba diagnosed him with hyponatraemic encephalopathy
and acute pulmonary edema. After determining that M r. Kikumura “could
possibly demise if placed on a flat [a]mbulance gurney” and taken to “Pueblo,”
the nearby hospital, Dr. Leyba began treating M r. Kikumura at the infirmary, and
stayed with him until 4:30 a.m. Original Compl. Ex. C-8, C-27. According to
M r. Kikumura, by the time he finally received treatment from Dr. Leyba, he was
suffering from “hyponatremic encephalopathy, acute pulmonary edema and
congestive heart failure, [w hich were] severely damaging [his] internal organs,
3
The Correctional Officer’s time log for July 5, 2002 indicates that M r.
Kikumura was taken to the infirmary at 7:35 p.m. The BP-9 Administrative
Response to M r. Kikumura’s formal grievance states that M r. Osagie was called
to his cell again at 8:15 p.m.
-7-
such as [his] brain, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach, tongue and mouth.” Am.
Compl. 7. 4
M r. Kikumura’s condition stabilized by morning, although he did not regain
consciousness for another 24 hours, and was even then “confused” and
“distress[ed].” O riginal Compl. Ex. C-14. The medical staff returned him to his
cell on July 9, 2002, four days after the onset of his illness. M r. Kikumura claims
that his “[p]hysical weakness, feeling sick, nausea, pains in [his] stomach, legs
and back, limbs bruising and their pains, emotional anxiety and distress, partial
memory elapsing, and difficulty in intelligent works continued till around [the]
end of July.” Id. M oreover, he asserts that “m ild physical problem[s] as tangible
aftereffects of the disease and mental anxiety, depression, and some difficulty for
intelligent works further lasted until around [the] end of September in 2002.” Id.
B. M r. K ikum ura’s Pursuit of Adm inistrative Remedies
During his recovery, M r. Kikumura came to believe that the medical
treatment he received on July 5, 2002 was inadequate. Since M r. Kikumura lost
all memory of the events on July 5, 2002 sometime between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30
p.m., however, he has no direct knowledge of what caused the alleged delay in his
care after that time. Nonetheless, he was able to speak with Officer Sanders, one
4
M r. Kikumura’s medical records from July 5, 2002 are largely consistent
with his description of his injuries.
-8-
of the correctional officers guarding his cell when he fell ill, and to ask him what
happened after he lost consciousness. According to M r. Kikumura, Officer
Sanders told him that both he and Officer Vail, the other correctional officer
guarding his cell, realized that M r. Kikumura required additional medical care
soon after they first returned him to his cell at 3:30 p.m. They allegedly called
the infirmary again at 4:00 p.m. to inform M r. Osagie of M r. Kikumura’s
worsening condition. M r. Osagie did not arrive at the cell until sometime
between 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Once he arrived, M r. Osagie supposedly
observed M r. Kikumura’s deteriorating state of health, and told the Correctional
Officers that he would take M r. Kikumura to the infirmary. He then left the unit
to retrieve a wheel chair for M r. Kikumura. Although M r. Osagie said he would
be back shortly, he allegedly did not return to the cell to take M r. Kikumura to the
infirmary until 7:35 p.m.
On August 14, 2002, M r. Kikumura filed an informal resolution form with
ADX prison. He asserted that “the prison official handled [his] case wrongfully”
and asked the prison authorities “to investigate the case” and discipline the
“person who violated [his] constitutional rights so that the same w rong-doing
[will not] happen again in this prison.” Am. Compl. Ex. A-1. The prison
responded to M r. Kikumura’s informal grievance on August 19, 2002. The
response stated that a Correctional Counselor had reviewed the case, and
-9-
determined that he was “treated by medical staff and will continue to be treated
according to [his] medical needs.” Id.
M r. Kikumura filed a formal administrative remedy request (a BP-9) with
the W arden of ADX on August 20, 2002. In his BP-9, M r. Kikumura complained
that although he first hit the panic button in his cell at 2:30 p.m., he did not
receive treatment from a doctor until 10:30 p.m., and claimed that he “suffered
with a deadly consequence” as a result of this delay. Id., Ex. A-2. He said that
he believed “the prison officials’ delayed response . . . violat[ed] [his]
constitutional rights,” but explained that he has “been unable to get records which
show a full view on what happened [to him].” Id., Ex. A-3. Nonetheless, he
recounted what Officer Sanders allegedly told him regarding the delay in his
treatment, which was that the Correctional Officers called the infirmary again at
4:00 p.m. to summon medical assistance, but M r. Osagie did not arrive at the cell
until 5:30 p.m., and did not take M r. Kikumura back to the infirmary again until
7:35 p.m.
In his BP-9, M r. Kikumura asked the W arden “to investigate the case and
let [him] know . . . whether or not the [Correctional] Officers’ allegation stated
above is correct.” Id. He also asked for “the content of the Unit Log in regard to
the response of the prison officials [to his] sickness between 2:30 p.m. [and] 9:00
p.m. [on] July 05.” Id. The relief sought by M r. Kikumura was for the W arden
“to take necessary action[,] including to decipline [sic] involved person[s] who
-10-
violated [his] constitutional rights according to the BOP policy or introduce new
policy so that the same w rong-doing won’t happen again (let me know if you
found their conduct did not violate the existing policy).” Id. He also requested
“legal relief which is appropriate under the US law and Constitution as well as
necessary medical care.” Id.
The W arden issued a response to M r. Kikumura’s BP-9 on September 11,
2002. He stated that a “review of [the BP-9] was performed,” and it found the
following:
[a] M id-Level Provider came to your cell and had you taken to the
examination room on the unit. He provided you with an examination
at that time[,] . . . advised you to continue taking your medication
and to drink fluids[, and] . . . had you returned to your cell. Around
8:15 p.m. that evening, the M id-Level Provider was again called to
your unit. After a brief assessment, he directed staff to transport you
to the Health Services Unit where he began aggressively treating
your symptoms.
Id., Ex. A-4. The W arden continued: “[t]he Clinical Director advises that the
medical treatment you received was timely and appropriate. Staff were not
deliberately indifferent to your medical needs. . . . [T]he medical care provided,
and currently being provided to you is commensurate with community standards.”
Id.
M r. Kikumura filed an appeal of the W arden’s decision with the Regional
Director (a BP-10) on September 19, 2002. He claimed that the W arden
wrongfully concluded that the “unconstitutional conduct by the officials [was]
-11-
‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘is commensurate with community standard[s]’
under the policy, custom and practice of this prison.” Id., Ex. A-5. M r.
Kikumura then reasserted his claim that the prison officials had violated his
constitutional rights. He also stated that if the W arden’s response to his BP-9 was
correct, then “the policy, custom or action by those who represent official policy
in this prison are of inaction which amount[s] to failure to protect [my]
constitutional rights under the 8th A mendment, constituting systematic and gross
deficiencies in training and disiplin [sic] of medical staff.” Id. M r. Kikumura
therefore requested that the R egional Director “change the policy on medical care
. . . , apply[] discipline [to] those who violated my constitutional rights, [and]
provid[e] . . . legal relief as well as necessary medical care.” Id. He also asked
for further “investigation [into] the case,” a copy of the Unit Log, and for
information from the prison about “what happened [to him on] 7/5/02.” Id.
The Regional Director denied M r. Kikumura’s BP-10 appeal on October 15,
2002. He noted that M r. Kikumura claimed that he “did not receive prompt and
effective medical treatment for five hours when [he] was ill,” and that he
“request[s] that policy concerning medical care be changed, and that those who
violated [his] constitutional rights be disciplined.” Id., Ex. A-6. The letter of
denial stated that the Regional Director’s Office had “reviewed [M r. Kikumura’s]
institution level complaint,” and found that “[t]he W arden’s response adequately
addresses [his] claim.” Id. “You received adequate medical treatment,” the
-12-
Regional Director wrote, “and there is no evidence that staff violated your
constitutional rights by denying you such treatment.” Id. Consequently, the
Regional Director determined that M r. Kikumura’s “request to have staff
disciplined [was] not warranted.” Id.
M r. Kikumura filed an appeal of the Regional Director’s decision (a BP-11)
on October 31, 2002. He explained in his BP-11 that he “was without a prompt
and effective treatment from 2:30 p.m. when [he hit] a panic button to 10:20 p.m.
when the doctor came,” and alleged that his “deadly disease was caused not only
by [M r. Osagie’s] delaying response but [also by] his fatal prescription.” Id., Ex.
A-7. He also reasserted the requests for relief from his BP-9, including a “change
[to] the policy on medical care,” “discipline [for] those who violated [his]
constitutional rights,” “legal relief,” “continuing necessary medical care,” an
investigation into the case, and copies of the documents he had requested. Id. O n
November 29, 2002, the A dministrator of N ational Inmate A ppeals denied M r.
Kikumura’s BP-11. The Administrator found “no indication that medical care and
treatment was delayed” and that M r. Kikumura “received treatment in accordance
with the symptoms [he] presented to medical staff.” Id., Ex. A-8.
In addition to pursuing his Eighth Amendment claim through the inmate-
grievance process, M r. Kikumura also filed an administrative claim under the
Federal Tort C laims A ct (FTC A) with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). H e
filed his first FTCA administrative claim on September 17, 2002, alleging that
-13-
M r. Osagie’s negligence in treating him caused severe injuries. On December 20,
2002, he filed a supplemental administrative claim asserting that Officers V ail
and Sanders were also negligent. The BOP denied his claim on M arch 7, 2003,
concluding that M r. Kikumura did not “suffer[] any personal injury as a result of
the negligent acts or omissions of Bureau of Prisons employees acting within the
scope of their employment.” Am. Compl. Ex. A-9.
C. Proceedings in D istrict Court
M r. Kikumura, acting pro se, filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on February 7, 2003, asserting various causes
of action under the Eighth Amendment. The district court referred the law suit to
a magistrate judge. M r. K ikumura amended his complaint on M ay 28, 2003.
In his amended complaint, M r. Kikumura asserted fourteen claims against
eight defendants. The named defendants were Anthony Osagie, the physician’s
assistant who treated M r. K ikumura; Officers Vail and Sanders, the two
correctional officers guarding his cell unit when he fell ill; R. Bauer, a C aptain in
the United States Public Health Service and the Health Services Administrator at
ADX; B. Greenwood, also a Captain in the United States Public Health Service
and the Assistant Health Services Administrator at ADX; M . V. Pugh, the
W arden of ADX; J. Burrell, the Associate W arden of ADX; and the United States
of America.
-14-
The first six claims assert a right of recovery against the individual
defendants pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of the Eighth Amendment
guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. These six claims for deliberate
indifference are, respectively: (1) M r. Osagie provided inadequate medical care to
M r. Kikumura when he first arrived at the infirmary; (2) M r. Osagie failed to
alleviate M r. Kikumura’s pain and suffering before sending him back to his cell;
(3) M r. Osagie failed to fulfill his gatekeeper role by waiting almost six hours
before calling the prison doctor; (4) M r. Osagie deliberately left M r. Kikumura in
his cell for at least two hours after learning of his acute medical condition; (5)
Officers Vail and Sanders knew that M r. Kikumura required serious medical
attention soon after they returned him to his cell, but delayed calling the infirmary
for up to four hours; and (6) Captain Bauer, Captain Greenwood, W arden Pugh,
and Assistant W arden Burrell (together the “Supervisory Defendants”) failed to
provide adequate training and discipline to their staff, which “were closely
related” to and ultimately caused M r. K ikumura’s injuries. Am. Compl. 6–14.
M r. Kikumura’s remaining eight claims assert a right of recovery against
the United States under the FTCA for various state-law torts allegedly committed
by the individual defendants. The seventh through the fourteenth claims are,
respectively: (7) M r. Osagie negligently failed to take reasonable care in
providing M r. Kikumura medical care; (8) M r. Osagie negligently failed to detect
-15-
or diagnose M r. Kikumura’s emergency medical condition; (9) M r. Osagie
negligently failed to refer M r. Kikumura’s case to the prison doctor until 9:25
p.m.; (10) M r. Osagie negligently misrepresented M r. Kikumura’s state of health
to the Correctional Officers w hen he accused him of malingering; (11) M r. Osagie
engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct; (12) Officers Vail and Sanders
negligently delayed calling the infirmary a second time after M r. Kikumura’s
condition deteriorated; (13) Officers Vail and Sanders engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct; and (14) the Supervisory Defendants negligently failed to
adequately train and discipline the ADX staff, and are liable under respondeat
superior.
On A ugust 18, 2003, the defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6),
asserting various reasons for the dismissal of all fourteen of M r. Kikumura’s
claims. W ith respect to the Bivens claims, the Defendants argued, among other
things, that M r. Kikumura had failed to state a claim under the Eighth
Amendment, and that because he “did not identify Defendants Vail, Sanders,
Pugh, Burrell, Bauer or Greenwood in any of the grievances he filed,” he “failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies against these Defendants.” M ot. to
Dismiss 4. They also argued that M r. Kikumura’s FTCA claims based on M r.
Osagie’s alleged malfeasance should be dismissed because he failed to file a
-16-
certificate of review demonstrating “substantial justification” for the claims, as
required by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602.
In response to the Defendants’ allegation that he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies on his Bivens claims, M r. Kikumura submitted a renewed
BP-9 grievance form to the W arden. This new BP-9, filed on August 27, 2003,
listed the individual defendants by name and specifically mentioned his Eighth
Amendment claims. The W arden rejected his renewed BP-9 filing as untimely,
noting that BP-9s must be received within 20 days of the event complained about.
M r. Kikumura appealed the denial by means of a BP-10 to the Regional Director,
which was rejected, and then filed a BP-11 addressed to the General Counsel,
which w as also rejected. After receiving the final rejection, M r. Kikumura
submitted copies of all of these documents to the magistrate judge.
M r. Kikumura filed his response to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on
September 24, 2003. Although he responded to most of the Defendants’
arguments, M r. Kikumura asked the Court for an extension on the deadline to file
a certificate of review, explaining that he did not know of the requirement until he
read the motion to dismiss. He also asked the magistrate judge to appoint him
counsel, arguing that he needed an attorney to make “contact with a licensed
physician who could provide [him] a Certificate of Review,” and that the legal
issues involved in the Defendants’ administrative-exhaustion argument were too
-17-
“novel and complex” for a pro se litigant to properly address. Resp. to M ot. to
Dismiss 8, 24.
A week later, M r. Kikumura filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order (“TRO”) to enjoin BOP officials from destroying evidence. In particular,
he asked the magistrate judge to enjoin the destruction of administrative
grievances filed by other inmates that might help show that the ADX employees
received inadequate training. Additionally, on October 17, 2003, M r. Kikumura
filed another motion for an extension of time to file a certificate of review and for
appointment of counsel.
On M arch 24, 2004, the magistrate judge entered an order recommending
that the district court grant the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and deny all other
pending motions as moot. The magistrate judge’s decision was based on the
following findings: (1) M r. Kikumura failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies for his Bivens claim against the Supervisory Defendants; (2) the FTCA
provides Captain Bauer and Captain Greenwood absolute immunity from the
Bivens claim because they are United States Public Health Service officers; (3)
the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to state a claim under the Eighth
Amendment against any of the individual defendants; (4) the Defendants are all
entitled to qualified immunity; (5) M r. Kikumura failed to submit a certificate of
review, as required under Colorado law, for his FTCA claims based upon M r.
Osagie’s allegedly negligent and outrageous conduct; (6) the “negligent
-18-
misrepresentation” claim is frivolous and unexhausted; (7) the United States has
not waived sovereign immunity over M r. Kikumura’s claims based on the
Correctional Officers’ “failure to refer or consult” and “outrageous conduct,” or
over his claim based on respondeat superior.
M r. Kikumura filed his objections to the magistrate judge’s
recommendation on April 26, 2004, disputing all of the grounds given by the
magistrate judge for dismissing his fourteen claims. He also renewed his motions
for a TRO, appointment of counsel, and an extension of time for filing a
certificate of review. Objections to M ag. Rec. 25. Additionally, M r. Kikumura
argued that unless his request for counsel and an extension of time were granted,
the Certificate of Review requirement imposed under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-
602 would be unconstitutional as applied to him.
On June 16, 2004, the district court issued an order adopting all of the
magistrate judge’s recommendations with respect to the fourteen claims asserted
in M r. Kikumura’s complaint, and therefore dismissed the entire action with
prejudice. The district court also denied all of M r. Kikumura’s pending motions,
but did so on their merits rather than for mootness.
M r. K ikumura filed a notice of appeal on June 23, 2004.
-19-
D. The Appeal
M r. Kikumura argues that the district court’s order dismissing his amended
complaint was erroneous with respect to all fourteen of his claims. He also asks
this Court to reverse the district court’s order denying his motions for
appointment of counsel, an extension of time to file a Certificate of Review, and a
TRO prohibiting the BOP from destroying evidence. He also submitted a motion
requesting the appointment of counsel for this appeal.
In their Answ er Brief, the Defendants raise two arguments on appeal in
addition to responding to M r. Kikumura’s various contentions. First, they argue
that the district court erred in finding that M r. Kikumura exhausted his
administrative remedies for his Bivens claim against the Correctional O fficers.
Second, they contend that M r. Kikumura’s entire action should be dismissed
pursuant to the total exhaustion rule announced in Ross v. County of Bernalillo,
365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004), which was decided after the magistrate judge
issued his Order recommending that all fourteen of M r. Kikumura’s claims be
dismissed on their merits.
On September 1, 2005, we granted M r. Kikumura’s motion for appointment
of counsel for the appeal. W e also directed the parties to submit supplemental
briefing on two issues:
1. Did M r. Kikumura adequately exhaust his administrative remedies
in this case with respect to the claims he raised in his Bivens
complaint, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)?
-20-
2. If he failed to exhaust any of his claims, should the district court
have dismissed his entire complaint without prejudice, pursuant to
this circuit’s total exhaustion rule? See Ross v. County of Bernalillo,
365 F.3d 1181, 1190 (10th Cir. 2004).
Order, Sept. 1, 2005, at 3.
II. D ISC USSIO N
A. Exhaustion of Adm inistrative Remedies for the Bivens Claim s
In 1996, as part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Congress
established a mandatory exhaustion requirement for inmates challenging prison
conditions in federal court. Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Section
1997e(a) states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined
in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies
as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion
requirement “applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve
general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive
force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
As a federal prisoner, M r. Kikumura had to pursue his claims through the
BOP’s administrative remedy program before initiating his lawsuit. See Patel v.
Fleming, 415 F.3d 1105, 1109 (10th Cir. 2005). The BOP requires inmates to
“first present an issue of concern informally to staff.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.13(a).
-21-
Inmates who wish to pursue their grievance further may file “a formal written
Administrative Remedy Request, on the appropriate form (BP-9)” with the
W arden of the prison, so long as they act within “20 calendar days following the
date on which the basis for the request occurred.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a). If “not
satisfied with the W arden’s response,” they “may submit an Appeal on the
appropriate form (BP-10) to the appropriate Regional Director within 20 calendar
days of the date the W arden signed the response.” 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(a).
Finally, “[a]n inmate who is not satisfied with the Regional Director’s response
may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-11) to the General Counsel
within 30 calendar days of the date the Regional Director signed the response.”
Id.
After recovering from his injuries, M r. Kikumura pursued his grievance
through all four steps of the administrative process. He filed an informal
grievance with the prison regarding the medical treatment he received on July 5,
2002, followed by a formal BP-9 grievance, and then successive BP-10 and BP-11
appeals. The BOP accepted each filing as timely, addressed most of M r.
Kikumura’s claims on their merits, and denied his requests for relief.
The Defendants argue that even though M r. Kikumura proceeded through
all four stages of the grievance process, he did not properly exhaust his claims
against each of the individual defendants. They contend that because M r.
Kikumura’s BP-9 focused on the alleged malfeasance of M r. Osagie, and did not
-22-
mention any of the other defendants, he failed to exhaust his Bivens claims
against the Correctional Officers and Supervisory Defendants.
The magistrate judge accepted part, but not all, of the Defendants’
argument. Contrary to the Defendants’ position, the magistrate judge concluded
that M r. Kikumura satisfied the exhaustion requirements for his claim against the
Correctional Officers, explaining that “although plaintiff does not provide names
for them [in his grievance filings], plaintiff does provide sufficient information to
put prison administrators on notice in regard to the identities of the parties about
whom plaintiff was making complaint, and the nature of the claim he was
making.” M ag. Rec. 14–15. At the same time, however, the magistrate judge
determined that M r. Kikumura failed to exhaust his Bivens claim against the
Supervisory Defendants because the “broad conclusory statement” regarding
prison policy in the BP-9 “does not provide notice to prison administrators about
any specific complaint that plaintiff might have had.” Id. at 15–16. The district
court adopted both of these findings in the order dismissing M r. Kikumura’s
complaint. W e review the district court’s decision de novo. Patel, 415 F.3d at
1108.
W hen an inmate completes all of the administrative steps required by
prison regulations, “[a] showing of exhaustion . . . [is] dependent upon insight
into the administrative claim and its relationship with the federal suit.” Steele v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204, 1210 (10th Cir. 2003). There is no doubt
-23-
that “[a] litigant’s failure to raise issues during an administrative appeal can
constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” Kikumura v. Hurley, 242
F.3d 950, 956 (10th Cir. 2001). This Court has not, however, determined how
much information prisoners must provide in their administrative grievances to
satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement.
As an initial matter, we note our agreement with the Seventh Circuit that
the question of “what things an administrative grievance must contain” is first a
“choice-of-law issue.” Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2002). Since
§ 1997e(a) does not specify the procedural requirements necessary for exhaustion,
“the rules come from the prison grievance systems themselves — state law for
state prisons, federal administrative law for federal prisons.” Id. (holding that
“grievances must contain the sort of information that the administrative system
requires”). 5 In this case, however, the regulations governing the B OP’s
administrative remedy program do not specify the kind of information needed in a
grievance. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 540.10 & 542.15. Consequently, this case requires
us to craft a rule for w hen the prison regulations are silent.
5
According to Strong, “[t]he only constraint” on administrative remedy
programs “is that no prison system may establish a requirement inconsistent with
the federal policy underlying § 1983 and § 1997e(a).” Strong, 297 F.3d at 649.
Since the BOP has not set forth any regulations concerning the factual
particularity required in a grievance, there is no need for us to evaluate the
agency’s regulations in light of § 1983 and § 1997e(a).
-24-
The Defendants argue that this Court should adopt “a rule that requires the
inmate to include in his grievance the identity, either by name or description, of
the alleged wrongdoer and the nature of the w rongdoing.” A ppellees’ Supp. Br.
23–24. They rely on cases such as Curry v. Scott, 249 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2001),
where the Sixth Circuit held that a prisoner must “file a grievance against the
person he ultimately seeks to sue” to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of §
1997e(a). Id. at 505; see also Burton v. Jones, 321 F.3d 569, 575 (6th Cir. 2003)
(“[F]or a court to find that a prisoner has administratively exhausted a claim
against a particular defendant, a prisoner must have alleged mistreatment or
misconduct on the part of the defendant.”); Abdul-M uhammad v. Kempker, 450
F.3d 350, 351–52 (8th Cir. 2006) (adopting the Sixth Circuit’s approach).
Because M r. Kikumura’s administrative grievance did not identify the
Correctional Officers or Supervisory Defendants as w rongdoers, the Defendants
contend that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to those
individuals.
M r. Kikumura contends that a grievance satisfies the exhaustion
requirements of § 1997e(a) so long as it “alert[s] the BOP officials to the nature
of the wrongs by the prison staff.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 5. In Strong, the
Seventh Circuit adopted this rule. Judge Easterbrook, writing for the panel,
concluded that:
-25-
W hen the administrative rulebook is silent, a grievance suffices if it
alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is
sought. As in the notice-pleading system, the grievant need not lay
out the facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular relief.
All the grievance need do is object intelligibly to some asserted
shortcoming.
297 F.3d at 650. The Second Circuit adopted a similar standard in Johnson v.
Testman, 380 F.3d 691 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J.). Johnson holds that
“[u]ncounselled inmates navigating prison administrative procedures without
assistance cannot be expected to satisfy a standard more stringent than that of
notice pleading.” Id. at 697. Since “the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement does
require that prison officials be ‘afford[ed] . . . time and opportunity to address
complaints internally,’” however, the court found that “inmates must provide
enough information about the conduct of which they complain to allow prison
officials to take appropriate responsive measures.” Id. (quoting Porter v. Nussle,
534 U.S. 516, 524–25 (2002)).
W ithout a controlling statutory provision or regulation to guide our analysis
in choosing between these two rules, we must look to the purposes of § 1997e(a)
to determine w hat information an inmate must provide in a grievance. In
Woodford v. Ngo, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he PLRA attempts to
eliminate unwarranted federal-court interference with the administration of
prisons, and thus seeks to ‘afford corrections officials time and opportunity to
address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case.’”
-26-
__ U.S. __, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 2387 (2006) (quoting Nussle, 534 U.S. at 525
(alteration omitted)). The Court found that “[r]equiring proper exhaustion serves
all of these goals,” but “only if the prison grievance system is given a fair
opportunity to consider the grievance.” Woodford, __ U.S. at __, __, 126 S. Ct. at
2387, 2388. The reasoning of Woodford thus lends support to the approach
followed by the Second and Seventh Circuits: that a grievance will satisfy the
exhaustion requirement so long as it is not “so vague as to preclude prison
officials from taking appropriate measures to resolve the complaint internally.”
Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Defendants contend that this approach asks too little of prisoners, and
assert that the “reasonableness” of a rule requiring inmates to identify alleged
wrongdoers in their grievance is “apparent.” A ppellees’ Supp. Br. 23. W e are
unconvinced. The Supreme Court has cautioned that “the creation of an
additional procedural technicality . . . [is] particularly inappropriate in a statutory
scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.”
Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522, 526–27 (1972). Not only do inmates
typically file their grievances pro se, but BOP procedures allow prisoners just
twenty days from the date of their injury to file a grievance; they are allow ed less
than a page and a half to w rite out a complaint; and, because they are
incarcerated, the inmates often cannot investigate their own claims to identify the
alleged wrongdoers. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.14(a) & (c)(3); Am. Compl. Ex. A-2;
-27-
Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1209 n.4 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that “[a]ppellate
courts have acknowledged the difficulties faced by a prisoner in identifying
alleged w rongdoers before filing a complaint.”). Additionally, the BOP
administrative remedy program does not provide inmates a procedural mechanism
for amending their grievances to identify additional defendants or provide new
information about their claims, and federal regulations prohibit inmates from
raising new issues in their administrative appeals. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15(b)(2).
Given this procedural context, we do not find it so “apparent” that inmates must
be required to specifically identify the wrongdoers in their initial grievance.
M r. Kikumura’s diligent, but ultimately unsuccessful, attem pt to identify all
of the alleged wrongdoers in his grievance illustrates the problem. Because of his
memory loss caused by the hyponatremia, M r. Kikumura was unaware of the
Correctional Officers’ alleged malfeasance at the time he filed his initial
grievance. W ith respect to his claim against the Supervisory Defendants, M r.
Kikumura explains that “[i]t is not [an] easy task for a prisoner” such as himself
to learn the “chain of command in the prison and its administrative system so as
to claim the issue[s] in detail[]” in a grievance. Appellant’s Br. P18-3. M r.
Kikumura’s best opportunity to identify any possible malfeasance was through the
grievance process itself, and in his BP-9 he asked for the W arden “to investigate
the case and let [him] know the result[s]” of the investigation. Am. Compl. Ex.
-28-
A-3. Yet, under the Defendants’ proposed rule, M r. Kikumura would be limited
to his specific allegations of wrongdoing in the initial grievance.
W e also reject the Defendants’ contention that the standard for exhaustion
applied in the Second and Seventh Circuits — which requires inmates to provide
enough information in their grievances for prison officials to address the
complaint internally — turns the grievance process into “an empty formality.”
Appellees’ Supp. Br. 23. The BOP administrative remedy program is an
inquisitorial system designed “to solve problems and be responsive to issues
inmates raise.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of Prisons Program Statement No.
1330.13, at 10 (Aug. 13, 2002) (“Program Statement”). Properly submitted
grievances must be “investigated thoroughly” by independent prison officials, and
records of “all relevant information developed in the investigation,” including
written statements from other staff members regarding matters raised in the
grievance, “shall be retained with the case file.” Id. at 12. The inquisitorial
model adopted by the BOP is consistent with a rule allow ing inmates to exhaust
their administrative remedies with a grievance that provides prison officials a fair
opportunity to investigate and resolve the complaint internally even without
specifically identifying wrongdoers. Cf. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 109 (2000)
(“[T]he desirability of a court imposing a requirement of issue exhaustion
depends on the degree to which the analogy to normal adversarial litigation
applies in a particular administrative proceeding.”).
-29-
The Defendants also assert that inmates should be required to identify
wrongdoers in their grievances because the federal prison system receives
“thousands of inmate grievances” each year, and “the prison administration
process should not be required to cast a wide investigative net in order to identify
and resolve all possible claims.” Appellees’ Supp. Br. 22. The policy
considerations are not quite so straightforward, however. The grievance forms
now supplied to federal inmates are designed to “encourage a simple and
straightforward statement of the inmate’s grievance,” and inmates may place no
more than “a single complaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues on
the form.” 28 C.F.R. §§ 40.7(a), 542.14(c)(2). These restrictions are intended to
“facilitate[] indexing, and promote[] efficient, timely and comprehensive attention
to the issues raised” in the grievance. Program Statement 7. A rule that penalizes
inmates for failing to identify defendants as wrongdoers might undermine these
goals by encouraging inmates to list in their grievances anyone who might
possibly be involved in the alleged wrongdoing, rather than focusing on the most
likely perpetrator or cause of their injury. W e do not know whether the BOP
would prefer longer and more detailed grievances from its inmates, as the
Defendants’ proposed rule would seem to foster. Fortunately, it is not our place
to make that decision. If the BOP wants inmates to provide more information, it
can make that determination itself through the rulemaking process.
-30-
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we note the absence of any evidence
that M r. Kikumura w as ever informed he w as required to identify the w rongdoers
in his grievances. If the BOP w ants inmates to provide specific types of
information in their grievances, it should notify them of those requirements in
advance rather than waiting until they have already completed the grievance
process and filed a lawsuit. See Sims, 530 U.S. at 113 (O’Connor, J., concurring);
Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir. 2004). W ithout such notice, we
hold that a grievance satisfies § 1997e(a)’s exhaustion requirement so long as it
provides prison officials with enough information to investigate and address the
inmate’s complaint internally.
W e agree with the district court that M r. Kikumura exhausted his
administrative remedies against M r. Osagie and the two Correctional Officers
under this standard. In his BP-9, M r. Kikumura described the events surrounding
his injury as best he could: he claimed that he was negligently denied medical
treatment; he identified the various people he knew to be involved in the incident;
he recounted O fficer Sanders’s alleged version of events, which blamed M r.
Osagie for the delay in medical treatment; he asked for an investigation into his
case; and he requested any legal relief to which he might be entitled. This
information was sufficient to enable prison officials to investigate M r.
Kikumura’s complaint against M r. Osagie and the Correctional Officers, even
-31-
though he did not accuse the latter two defendants of wrongdoing until he filed
his complaint in federal court.
W e also affirm the district court’s finding that M r. Kikumura failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies against the four Supervisory Defendants,
Captain Bauer, Captain Greenwood, W arden Pugh, and Assistant W arden Burrell.
Claim six of the amended complaint accuses these four defendants of violating
M r. Kikumura’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate training
and discipline to the prison staff. In his BP-9, however, M r. Kikumura’s only
reference to prison “policy” is where he asks the W arden “to take necessary
action[,] including to decipline [sic] involved person[s] who violated my
constitutional rights according to the BOP policy or introduce new policy so that
the same wrong-doing won’t happen again.” A m. Compl. Ex. A-3. Although this
statement implies that M r. Kikumura’s injuries may have been caused by the old
prison policies, the vague reference to “policy” was insufficient to notify prison
officials that the injuries might have been caused by inadequate training and
disciplinary programs at the prison. Since prison officials w ere unlikely to
recognize the need to investigate these claims, the BP-9 did not provide the prison
with a fair opportunity to resolve M r. Kikumura’s complaint against the
Supervisory Defendants. The sixth claim is therefore unexhausted. 6
6
M r. Kikumura argues that even if he failed to exhaust his claim against the
(continued...)
-32-
B. The Total Exhaustion Rule
Since M r. Kikumura failed to exhaust one of his claims, we must decide
whether his entire complaint should be dismissed under the total exhaustion rule.
In Ross v. County of Bernalillo, 365 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2004), we held that the
PLRA requires total exhaustion of claims asserted in a prisoner lawsuit, and
therefore “mixed” actions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims must
be dismissed in their entirety without prejudice. Id. at 1190. 7 The Defendants
contend that Ross requires us to dismiss this action. In one respect, however, this
case differs from Ross. At the time the court ordered dismissal in Ross, it was
6
(...continued)
Supervisory Defendants in his BP-9, the Regional Director cured that failure by
addressing the merits of the claim in the response to his BP-10 appeal. M r.
Kikumura misreads the BP-10 response. Although the opening paragraph of the
BP-10 response acknowledges his claim regarding the prison’s “policy concerning
medical care,” it does not address the claim on its merits, Am. Compl. Ex. A-6,
and therefore does not cure his failure to exhaust the claim. See Patel v. Fleming,
415 F.3d 1105, 1111 (10th Cir. 2005).
7
There are differing views among the Courts of Appeals as to whether the
PLRA should be read to contain a total exhaustion requirement. Com pare Jones
Bey v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 801, 806 (6th Cir. 2005) (adopting the total exhaustion
rule), and Graves v. Norris, 218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000) (same), with Ortiz
v. M cBride, 380 F.3d 649, 656 (2d Cir. 2004) (rejecting the total exhaustion rule),
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 726 (6th Cir. 2006) (same), and Lira v.
Herrara, 427 F.3d 1164, 1176–77 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying the total exhaustion
rule only when the “exhausted and unexhausted claims . . . are closely related and
difficult to untangle”). The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in two
cases to resolve the issue. See Jones v. Bock, 135 Fed. Appx. 837 (6th Cir. 2005),
cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1462 (U.S. M ar. 6, 2006) (N o. 05-7058); Williams v.
Overton, 136 Fed. Appx. 859 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1463 (U.S.
M ar. 6, 2006) (No. 05-7142).
-33-
still possible, at least in theory, for the plaintiff to pursue his unexhausted claim
within the administrative grievance system. That gave rise to concerns over
piecemeal litigation. Ross, 365 F.3d at 1190. In this case, however, M r.
Kikumura already submitted his unexhausted claim to the grievance system, and
the BOP issued a final administrative decision denying the claim as
untimely— albeit all after M r. Kikumura filed his federal lawsuit. W e must
therefore decide whether the total exhaustion rule applies when, after the prisoner
files a “mixed” complaint, the prison issues a final order rejecting the prisoner’s
unexhausted claims on procedural grounds.
The answer turns on the rationale for the total exhaustion rule. The PLRA
states that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions . . . until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). The language of this provision does not require (or foreclose) a total
exhaustion rule. In Ross, we noted that this language “suggests” a total
exhaustion requirement “because it prohibits an ‘action’ (as opposed to merely
preventing a ‘claim’) from proceeding until administrative remedies are
exhausted.” Ross, 365 F.3d at 1190. But other statutes contain similarly worded
exhaustion requirements that we have not interpreted to require total exhaustion.
See, e.g., M acKenzie v. City and County of Denver, 414 F.3d 1266, 1274 & n.13
(10th Cir. 2005) (applying the exhaustion provision of the Americans w ith
Disabilities Act, which states that “[n]o action . . . shall be brought . . . if
-34-
administrative remedies have not been exhausted,” 42 U.S.C. § 6104(e)(2),
without a total exhaustion rule.). 8 Legislatures frequently employ the phrase “no
action shall be brought” in statutes of limitations, see Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank,
523 U.S. 410, 416 (1998), obviously without intending that courts dismiss an
entire action just because one of the claims asserted in the complaint is time-
barred. Accordingly, the Ross Court adopted the total exhaustion rule not because
it was dictated by the statutory language, but because “[t]he policies of the PLRA
. . . strongly support a reading of that statute that requires inmates to exhaust fully
all of their claims.” Ross, 365 F.3d at 1190; see also Ortiz v. M cBride, 380 F.3d
649, 656 n.3 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that the Ross Court “concluded that the
dismissal of a ‘mixed’ action was required, but relied on the language of the
statute only in passing.”). 9
The Ross Court relied primarily on an analogy to the total exhaustion rule
applicable in habeas proceedings, which it found to serve similar purposes. In
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), the Supreme Court held that when a prisoner
8
Indeed, another provision of the PLRA uses almost identical language:
“[n]o Federal civil action may be brought . . . for mental or emotional injury . . .
without a prior showing of physical injury.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). This has been
interpreted not to require dismissal of the entire case if one claim does not
qualify. See Robinson v. Page, 170 F.3d 747, 748–49 (7th Cir. 1999).
9
By contrast, in Jones Bey v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 801, 807 (6th Cir. 2005),
the Sixth Circuit “adopt[ed] the total exhaustion rule, in large part, because the
plain language of the statute dictates such a result.” See also Graves v. Norris,
218 F.3d 884, 885 (8th Cir. 2000) (same).
-35-
had exhausted some but not all claims brought in a habeas petition, the district
court must dismiss the entire habeas petition without prejudice. Id. at 510.
Although the text of the habeas exhaustion provision was “too ambiguous to
sustain the conclusion that Congress intended to either permit or prohibit review
of mixed petitions,” the Supreme Court concluded that “a rule requiring
exhaustion of all claims furthers the purposes underlying the habeas statute.” Id.
at 510, 516. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the total exhaustion rule
“giv[es] the prisoner the choice of returning to state court to litigate his
unexhausted claims, or of proceeding with only his exhausted claims in federal
court.” Id. at 514. Since a prisoner who proceeded with only the exhausted
claims “would risk forfeiting consideration of his unexhausted claims,” the
Supreme Court concluded that “strict enforcement of the exhaustion requirement
will encourage habeas petitioners to exhaust all of their claims in state court and
to present the federal court with a single habeas petition.” Id. at 520; see also
Ross, 365 F.3d at 1189–90. Applying “a similar analysis,” we concluded in Ross
that “the policies underlying the PLRA point toward a requirement of total
exhaustion,” and thus held that if a prisoner “submit[s] a complaint containing
one or more unexhausted claims, the district court ordinarily must dismiss the
entire action without prejudice.” 365 F.3d at 1190. 10
10
Since our decision in Ross, the Supreme Court has hinted that the PLRA’s
(continued...)
-36-
None of the policy considerations that led us to adopt the total exhaustion
rule in Ross apply to the circumstances presented in this case. The Ross Court
reasoned that the total exhaustion rule would “encourage prisoners to . . . give
prison officials the first opportunity to resolve prisoner complaints,” “facilitate
the creation of an administrative record that would ultimately assist federal courts
in addressing the prisoner’s claims,” “relieve district courts of the duty to
determine whether certain exhausted claims are severable from other unexhausted
claims,” and “avoid at least some piecemeal litigation.” Id. at 1190. W here the
plaintiff submits the unexhausted claim to the prison grievance system after filing
suit, and the prison issues a final rejection of that claim for untimeliness, these
concerns are inapposite. The prison officials have already been given the first
opportunity to resolve the complaint, the administrative record is complete, there
is no need to determine whether exhausted claims are severable from unexhausted
claims, and (because the unexhausted claims have been finally rejected on
timeliness grounds) there is no possibility of piecemeal litigation.
10
(...continued)
exhaustion provision should be interpreted in light of the administrative-
exhaustion doctrine rather than habeas law. See Woodford v. Ngo, __ U.S. __,
126 S. Ct. 2378, 2392 (2006) (“It is . . . unrealistic to infer from the wording of
the PLRA provision that Congress framed and adopted that provision with habeas
law and not administrative law in mind. Indeed, the wording of the PLRA
provision . . . is strikingly similar to our description of the doctrine of
administrative exhaustion.”). The Court’s administrative-exhaustion doctrine does
not appear to contain a total exhaustion requirement. See, e.g., M cKart v. United
States, 395 U.S. 185 (1969).
-37-
Applying the total exhaustion rule under such circumstances w ould simply
waste judicial resources and create an unnecessary burden on litigants. The total
exhaustion rule is not meant to force courts to play “a game of judicial
ping-pong” with inmate lawsuits. Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 270 (1989)
(O’Connor, J., concurring). If w e dismissed this action without prejudice, M r.
Kikumura would undoubtedly just drop the unexhausted claim from his complaint
and file the action again, creating unnecessary docketing and assignment work for
the district court and forcing M r. K ikumura to pay a gratuitous filing fee.
M oreover, if M r. Kikumura were required to refile his action in the district court,
his properly exhausted claims might now be barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations 11 — a problematic outcome considering M r. Kikumura’s diligent
efforts toward exhaustion.
In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), the Supreme Court crafted an
exception to the habeas total exhaustion rule that was designed to prevent such an
outcome. See id. at 277–78. The court held that “if a petitioner presents a district
court with a mixed petition and the court determines that a stay and abeyance [to
allow time for exhaustion in state court] is inappropriate, the court should allow
the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted
claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair the
11
See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-80-102 & 102.5; Van Tu
v. Koster, 364 F.3d 1196, 1198 (10th Cir. 2004).
-38-
petitioner’s right to obtain relief.” Id. at 278. Our interpretation of the total
exhaustion rule accomplishes a similar end in the PLRA context.
Dismissing an entire action under these circumstances, where the only
“unexhausted” claim in the complaint was already rejected by the prison on
procedural grounds, would also be contrary to the analysis and holding of Ross,
which was based on an analogy between the exhaustion requirement in habeas and
the PLRA. In the habeas context, when a petitioner defaults his federal claims in
state court by failing to comply with the state’s procedural requirements, he still
“meets the technical requirements for exhaustion” since “there are no state
remedies any longer ‘available’ to him.” Coleman v. Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722,
732 (1991). W hile the procedural default rule generally bars prisoners from
asserting federal claims that were denied by the state courts on procedural
grounds, those claims do not trigger the total exhaustion rule because they are, in
fact, exhausted. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 852 (1999) (Stevens, J.,
dissenting). 12 Just as “a [habeas] petitioner w ho has failed to satisfy state
procedural rules meets the ‘technical requirements for exhaustion’” and therefore
does not trigger the total exhaustion rule, the Ross Court expected the same to be
12
In O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999), the Supreme Court
appeared to jettison its old distinction between the exhaustion rules and the
procedural default doctrine in habeas law. See id. at 850–56 (Stevens, J.,
dissenting); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002). But in
Woodford the C ourt returned to its traditional distinction between the two
doctrines. Woodford, __ U.S. at __, 126 S. Ct. at 2387.
-39-
true for a prisoner w ho has failed to satisfy the prison grievance system’s
procedural rules. Ross, 365 F.3d at 1185 (quoting Coleman, 501 U.S. at 732); see
also id. at 1186 (holding “that the PLRA, like 28 U .S.C. § 2254, contains a
procedural default concept within its exhaustion requirement.”).
In keeping with the Ross Court’s policy-based analysis and the analogy it
drew between habeas and the PLRA, we decline Defendants’ invitation to extend
the PLRA’s total exhaustion rule to the circumstances presented in this case. Our
holding on this point has three components. First, an action containing both
exhausted claims and procedurally barred claims does not fall within the scope of
the total exhaustion rule. Second, this is true even if the prison grievance system
did not issue a final rejection of the procedurally barred claims until after the
prisoner filed suit. Third, claims that have been properly denied by the prison as
untimely are, practically speaking, procedurally defaulted, and thus may be
dismissed from the complaint individually and with prejudice. W e discuss each
of these points in turn.
The first component of our holding is that a claim rejected by the prison
grievance system on procedural grounds is considered exhausted for purposes of
the total exhaustion rule. This rule follows directly from the analysis and holding
of Ross, which imported the narrow definition of exhaustion and procedural
default concept of habeas into the PLRA along with the total exhaustion rule.
Ross, 365 F.3d at 1185–86, 1189–90. W e recognize that the Supreme Court
-40-
recently rejected the contention that “the wording of the PLRA exhaustion
provision . . . shows that [§ 1997e(a)] was meant to incorporate the narrow
technical definition of exhaustion that applies in habeas.” Woodford, __ U.S. at
__, 126 S. Ct. at 2392. Instead, the Court read the language of § 1997e(a) to
impose a single requirement of “proper exhaustion of administrative remedies,
which ‘means using all steps that the agency holds out’” in “compliance with an
agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Woodford, __ U.S. at __,
__, 126 S. Ct. at 2385–86 (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th
Cir. 2002)). Under Woodford, therefore, claims rejected by the prison grievance
system on procedural grounds are still considered unexhausted. But Woodford
relates only to the exhaustion requirements imposed by § 1997e(a) itself, which
govern whether a prisoner may obtain judicial review of a PLRA claim when he
failed to meet the procedural requirements for obtaining administrative review of
that claim. Woodford does not address the total exhaustion rule, which is a
separate procedural requirement grounded in “the policies underlying the PLRA”
rather than in the text of § 1997e(a). Ross, 365 F.3d at 1190. Woodford does not
require us to disturb the symmetry between the total exhaustion rules in habeas
and the PLRA. Although procedurally-barred claims are generally considered to
be unexhausted under the PLRA for purposes of determining whether they may be
pursued in court, we hold that such claims should be treated as exhausted for
purposes of the total exhaustion rule, just as they are for habeas.
-41-
The second component of our holding is that the total exhaustion rule does
not require dismissal of the entire action where, subsequent to the filing of the
lawsuit, the prison grievance system has issued a final denial of any unexhausted
claims on procedural grounds. This eliminates the danger of “piecemeal
litigation” and thus satisfies the relevant policies of the total exhaustion rule.
Ross, 365 F.3d at 1190. W here the previously unexhausted claims in a complaint
have been denied by the prison grievance system on procedural grounds, whether
before or after the prisoner files suit, the only effect of dismissing the entire
complaint would be to unnecessarily burden the litigants and the district court.
This preserves the symmetry between the PLRA and habeas, which
underlies the holding in Ross. After filing a “mixed” habeas petition, prisoners
can avoid dismissal under the total exhaustion rule by submitting their
unexhausted claims to the state courts. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278
(2005). It follows that the total exhaustion rule under the PLRA must not apply
to procedurally barred claims, even if the prison grievance system issued its
denial of those claims after the prisoner filed his lawsuit. 13
The third component of our holding is that a claim that has been properly
rejected by the prison grievance system on procedural grounds should be
13
Of course, since the PLRA requires exhaustion as a prerequisite to filing
suit, see Fitzgerald v. C orr. C orp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1140–41 (10th Cir.
2005), courts may not grant relief to a prisoner based on a claim that was rejected
by the prison on its merits subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit.
-42-
dismissed from the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. Although “[a] dismissal
based on lack of exhaustion . . . should ordinarily be without prejudice,” this is
because “[f]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies is often a temporary,
curable, procedural flaw.” Steele v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 355 F.3d 1204,
1212–13 (10th Cir. 2003). Once a prison formally denies an inmate’s grievance
for untimeliness, and either the inmate does not challenge the basis for that
decision or the court upholds the decision, the inmate’s failure to exhaust is no
longer “a temporary, curable, procedural flaw.” Such a claim should be dismissed
with prejudice.
After filing suit, M r. Kikumura submitted his unexhausted claim against the
Supervisory Defendants to the prison grievance system. The prison system
rejected that claim as untimely, and M r. Kikumura does not challenge that
disposition. W e therefore affirm the district court’s order dismissing with
prejudice M r. Kikumura’s Bivens claim against Captain Bauer, Captain
Greenwood, W arden Pugh, and Assistant W arden Burrell. But contrary to the
Defendants’ argument, the total exhaustion rule does not require dismissal of the
remaining claims in M r. K ikumura’s complaint.
-43-
C. Failure to State a Claim under the Eighth A mendm ent & Q ualified
Immunity
It is w ell established that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment if
their “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This is true whether the indifference
is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by
prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care.” Id. at
104–05 (footnotes omitted). At the same time, however, “[m]edical malpractice
does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.” Id. at 106. A complaint about “an inadvertent failure to provide
adequate medical care” or “that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or
treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment
under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 105–06. “Rather, ‘a prisoner must allege
acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.’” Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106).
The test for a “deliberate indifference” claim under the Eighth Amendment
has “both an objective and a subjective component.” Sealock v. Colorado, 218
F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). The objective component of the test is met if
the harm suffered is “sufficiently serious” to implicate the Cruel and Unusual
-44-
Punishment Clause. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The subjective component “is met if a prison official
‘knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.’” Sealock,
218 F.3d at 1209 (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). M oreover, to overcome the
qualified immunity defense, the prisoner “must demonstrate that the defendant’s
actions violated a specific constitutional right,” and “then show that the
constitutional right was ‘clearly established’ prior to the challenged official
action.” M ata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 749 (10th Cir. 2005).
W e stress the procedural context of this case. Prior to discovery, the
magistrate judge ruled that M r. Kikumura’s Eighth Amendment claims failed to
satisfy the objective and subjective components of deliberate indifference. The
magistrate judge concluded that because M r. Kikumura “failed to allege facts that
demonstrate the actions of the defendants violated a federal or statutory right,”
the Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity.” M ag. Rec. 34. The district
court adopted each of these holdings in its order dismissing M r. Kikumura’s
action. The question before us is therefore not whether M r. Kikumura has
presented evidence in support of his complaint, but whether his allegations, if
true, state a claim under the Eighth A mendment. “Dismissal of a pro se
complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the
plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give
him an opportunity to amend.” Hunt v. U phoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir.
-45-
1999) (quoting Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir.
1999)). “In addition to construing a pro se complaint liberally, this court ‘must
accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe those allegations, and
any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.’” M artinez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir.
2005) (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002)).
1. O bjective Component
To satisfy the objective component of a deliberate indifference claim
arising under the Eighth Amendment, “the alleged deprivation must be
‘sufficiently serious’ to constitute a deprivation of constitutional dimension.”
Self v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1230 (10th Cir. 2006). “[T]he purpose for this
requirement is to limit claims to significant, as opposed to trivial, suffering.”
M ata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 753 (10th Cir. 2005). Consequently, we look to the
alleged injury claimed by the prisoner, and ask “whether that harm is sufficiently
serious.” Id.
W hen the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim is premised on an alleged
delay in medical care, the prisoner must “show that the delay resulted in
substantial harm.” Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272, 1276 (10th Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted). That “substantial harm” can be the ultimate
physical injury caused by the prisoner’s illness, so long as the prisoner can show
that the more timely receipt of medical treatment would have minimized or
-46-
prevented the harm. See M ata, 427 F.3d at 753. The “substantial harm” can also
be an intermediate injury, such as the pain experienced while waiting for
treatment and analgesics. Id. Although “not every twinge of pain suffered as a
result of delay in medical care is actionable,” when the pain experienced during
the delay is substantial, the prisoner “sufficiently establishes the objective
element of the deliberate indifference test.” Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1210.
M r. Kikumura claims that he experienced severe pain after being sent back
to his cell from the infirmary by M r. Osagie. His complaint provides the
following description of events:
[After they] returned me to the cell[,] . . . I was laid on the bed by
the [Correctional Officers] because the severe pains and cramps had
me unable to stand up or walk. There, my condition was rapidly
deteriorated. Following severe vomiting up to the bedside after
approximately 1530, I crept toward the toilet for water. Collapsing
by the toilet, endlessly letting me drink many water and throw it up
violently around the floor, untreated extreme cramps and pains
spread throughout the whole of my body as if imposing me a torture.
It gave me rise to psychological anguish and horror of death, as I was
writhing and thrashing in the waste all hour, ceaselessly screaming
“help me,” falling into a confusion which was caused by the illness
that was also damaging my brain. And then finally my memory
ceased around 1600–1630. Even thereafter, I continued tormented
with those torturous physical injury, pains and distress, and extreme
psychological anguish (for next 12 hours until I returned to stable
condition).
Am. Compl. 6 (grammatical errors in original).
Additionally, if we read M r. Kikumura’s complaint liberally, he also claims
that the delay in treatment “caused” his “physical injury”; presumably because
-47-
earlier treatment would have stopped the hyponatremia from reaching a critical
stage. Am. Compl. 8. M r. Kikumura describes his ultimate injury from the delay
as follow s:
W hen prison doctor Dr. Leyba arrived at me around 2220, I was ‘an
acute status thrashing following a seizure like reaction’ and ‘in
extremus,’ and he took aggressive care of my medical condition
throughout the night. I suffered with medical injury with
hyponatremic encephalopathy, acute pulmonary adema and
congestive heart failure, severely damaging internal organs, such as
brain, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach, tongue and mouth. . . . I
was placed on emergency response status between 7/5 at 2228 to 7/8
at 0600. . . . Physical weakness, feeling sick, nausea, pains in
stomach, legs and back, limbs bruising and their pains, emotional
anxiety and distress, partial memory elapsing, and difficulty in
intelligent works continued till around end of July, and mild physical
problem as tangible aftereffects of the disease and mental anxiety,
depression, and some difficulty for intelligent works further lasted
until around end of September in 2002.
Am. Compl. 7 (grammatical and spelling errors in original).
The “torturous” pain M r. Kikumura allegedly experienced as a result of the
delay in medical care, along with his significant physical injuries, is enough to
satisfy the “substantial harm” requirement of the objective component of a
deliberate indifference claim.
2. Subjective Component
The more difficult issue raised by the district court’s findings is whether
M r. Kikumura can prove a set of facts sufficient to satisfy the subjective
component of his deliberate indifference claims against M r. Osagie, O fficer Vail,
and Officer Sanders. The subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim
-48-
requires an “inquiry into a prison official’s state of mind when it is claimed that
the official has inflicted cruel and unusual punishment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 838 (1994). It is not enough to allege that prison officials failed “to
alleviate a significant risk that [they] should have perceived but did not.” Id. To
show “the requisite deliberate indifference,” M r. Kikumura “must establish that
defendant(s) knew he faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk,
‘by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.’” Hunt v. U phoff, 199 F.3d
1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Farmer, 511 U .S. at 847). W e first address
M r. Kikumura’s four Eighth Amendment claims against M r. Osagie, followed by
his Eighth A mendment claim against the Correctional Officers.
a. M r. Osagie
M r. Kikumura asserts four claims against M r. Osagie for deliberate
indifference, each centering on a separate accusation. Those accusations are,
respectively: (1) M r. Osagie failed to provide adequate medical treatment to M r.
Kikumura when he first arrived at the infirmary; (2) M r. Osagie failed to alleviate
M r. Kikumura’s pain and suffering; (3) M r. Osagie failed to fulfill his gatekeeper
role by waiting approximately six hours before calling the prison doctor; and (4)
after M r. Osagie was summoned to M r. Kikumura’s cell a second time, he knew
that M r. Kikumura’s medical condition was “extremely acute” and yet failed to
take him to the infirmary for at least another two hours.
-49-
Based on the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court
dismissed all four of M r. Kikumura’s Eighth A mendment claims against M r.
Osagie on the ground that M r. Kikumura “alleged no facts that demonstrate” that
M r. Osagie possessed “a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” M ag. Rec. 24
(internal quotation marks omitted). This w as an error. M r. Kikumura is merely
required to provide “a short and plain statement” of his Eighth Amendment
claims, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), and “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other condition
of mind of a person may be averred generally” in the complaint, Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b). See Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 916 (10th Cir. 2001); M cBride v. Deer,
240 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir. 2001). According to M r. Kikumura’s amended
complaint, M r. Osagie “knew” that M r. Kikumura “require[d] prompt medical
attention and . . . that delay would exacerbate [his] health problem,” but
deliberately “disregarded that risk.” Am. Compl. 9. These allegations satisfy the
pleading requirement of Rule 8(a) for the subjective component of a deliberate
indifference claim.
Of course, even when Eighth Amendment claims meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a), those claims should still be dismissed when “it appears
beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957).
Since the subjective component of deliberate indifference is based on the prison
officials’ state of mind, it is “a question of fact subject to demonstration in the
-50-
usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.” Farmer, 511 U.S.
at 842. Although plaintiffs are not required to plead specific facts demonstrating
defendants’ culpable state of mind, they can still undermine their own case by
asserting facts incompatible with a deliberate indifference claim. The district
court dismissed M r. Kikumura’s Eighth Amendment claims against M r. Osagie on
this ground.
M r. Kikumura identifies specific facts in his complaint from which a jury
could infer that M r. Osagie knew about the substantial risk of serious harm posed
by his illness. M r. Kikumura alleges that when he first arrived at the infirmary,
the severity of his symptoms w as “so obvious and substantial” — including his
extreme pain, nausea, and inability to stand or walk — that M r. Osagie “must
have known” he “require[d] prompt medical attention and . . . that delay would
exacerbate [his] health problem [and] . . . was likely to inflict or prolong
unnecessary pain and suffering.” Am. Compl. 8, 10, 12. It is well established
that “a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk
from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; see Self
v. Crum, 439 F.3d 1227, 1232-33 (10th Cir. 2006) (a “jury may infer conscious
disregard” when a prison doctor “responds to an obvious risk with treatment that
is patently unreasonable.”). A jury could therefore infer from the alleged
“obviousness” of M r. Kikumura’s condition that M r. Osagie knew of the
significant risk of harm.
-51-
Nonetheless, the magistrate judge determined that M r. Kikumura’s Eighth
Amendment claims against M r. Osagie were, in reality, just claims for negligent
misdiagnosis and malpractice, and thus failed to satisfy the subjective component
of the deliberate indifference test. This conclusion finds support in some of the
factual allegations in the complaint. M r. Kikumura admits that M r. Osagie
examined him at the infirmary, reported that he found “no pathology” other than
lactose intolerance, and gave him acetaminophen before sending him back to his
cell. Am. Compl. 5–6; id., Ex. A-8. These allegations, without more, suggest
that M r. Osagie made a good faith attempt to treat M r. Kikumura and did not act
with deliberate indifference.
In other portions of the complaint, however, M r. Kikumura presents
allegations that the medical treatment he received was merely a façade that hid
M r. O sagie’s intentional and reckless disregard for M r. K ikumura’s well-being.
M r. Kikumura claims that M r. Osagie “knew” he “require[d] prompt medical
attention” when he first arrived at the infirmary, but was “already prejudiced”
against him, and therefore chose not “to verify underlying facts of [his]
excruciating sufferings” because he knew it “would bring him [to the] conclusion
that something was not right.” Am. Compl. 5, 8. Instead, M r. Osagie conducted
a “perfunctory exam,” announced that there was “no pathology elicited,” provided
medical treatment “so cursory as to amount to no treatment at all,” and sent M r.
Kikumura back to his cell. Id. at 5–6, 8 (internal quotation marks omitted).
-52-
M oreover, even if M r. Osagie’s initial misdiagnosis was merely negligent, the
allegation that M r. Osagie delayed treatment for approximately two hours even
after he had realized the seriousness of M r. Kikumura’s condition later that
afternoon could support a claim of deliberate indifference. At this stage in the
proceeding, we do not know whether these allegations can be substantiated, but it
is not “beyond doubt” that M r. Kikumura “can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46.
W e therefore find that the allegations in M r. Kikumura’s amended
complaint are sufficient to satisfy the subjective component of his deliberate
indifference claims against M r. Osagie. As previously noted, M r. Kikumura’s
claims against M r. Osagie also satisfy the objective component. Consequently,
we find that all four of M r. Kikumura’s deliberate indifference claims against M r.
Osagie state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Of course, we express
no opinion on whether these claims will withstand summary judgment or be
proved on the merits.
b. The Correctional O fficers
M r. Kikumura alleges that Officers V ail and Sanders violated the Eighth
Amendment by leaving him in his cell for several hours while his condition
worsened, before calling the infirmary again. According to the complaint, M r.
Kikumura’s condition “rapidly deteriorated” soon after he was returned from the
infirmary to his cell at 3:30 p.m. Am. Compl. 6. The complaint states that the
-53-
Correctional Officers had at least four separate opportunities between 4:00 p.m.
and 5:30 p.m. to view M r. Kikumura in his cell, and they therefore “knew” that
M r. Kikumura’s “health problem w as exacerbated” and that he “require[d]
immediate medical attention.” Id. at 12. M r. Kikumura also alleges that Officer
Sanders told him that both he and Officer Vail knew M r. Kikumura needed
serious medical attention sometime around 4:00 p.m. Nonetheless, the
Correctional Officers “disregarded that risk” and “recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally” delayed calling the infirmary again until 7:35 p.m. Id.
The magistrate judge identified three reasons w hy M r. Kikumura’s claim
against the Correctional Officers could not satisfy the subjective component of
the deliberate indifference test. The district court accepted all three findings in
its order dismissing M r. K ikumura’s action. W e consider each in turn.
First, the magistrate judge determined that the Correctional Officers could
not have had the requisite “culpable state of mind” because “they are not medical
personnel,” and therefore were not “in a position to challenge or second-guess the
conclusion that had been reached by Osagie.” M ag. Rec. 25. This finding
disregards O fficer Sanders’s alleged self-incriminatory statement — which we
assume he truly made for purposes of this appeal — that by 4:00 p.m. he and
Officer V ail both knew M r. K ikumura required immediate medical attention.
M oreover, given that M r. Kikumura’s health had “rapidly deteriorated,” it is
possible that even a lay person could have recognized a change in circumstances
-54-
necessitating emergency medical treatment. In light of these allegations, we do
not believe that the Correctional Officers’ lack of medical training necessarily
defeats the inference that they disregarded a known risk of serious harm to M r.
Kikumura.
Second, the magistrate judge concluded that M r. Kikumura’s deliberate
indifference claim against the Correctional Officers is inconsistent with other
factual allegations in his complaint. In support of his fourth deliberate
indifference claim against M r. Osagie, M r. Kikumura states that the Correctional
Officers called the infirmary on his behalf a second time at approximately 4:00
p.m., but M r. Osagie ignored their call and left M r. Kikumura in his cell. This
allegation obviously contradicts M r. Kikumura’s deliberate indifference claim
against the Correctional Officers, which states that they did not call the infirmary
again until 7:35 p.m. M r. Kikumura acknowledges this contradiction, but
explains that he received inconsistent reports from prison officials about the
timing of the second call to the infirmary, and therefore pled these two sets of
facts in the alternative. Since the Federal Rules allow litigants to plead in the
alternative, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(2), M r. Kikumura’s inconsistent allegations
regarding the second call to the infirmary do not undermine his Eighth
Amendment claim against the Correctional Officers.
Third, the magistrate judge found that M r. Kikumura’s alleged “period of
suffering due to conduct or inaction by Vail and Sanders lasted only two hours,”
-55-
and this short delay in treatment “cannot possibly constitute evidence of
deliberate indifference.” M ag. Rec. 26. Initially, we note that M r. Kikumura
asserts that the Correctional Officers knew he needed emergency medical
treatment at approximately 4:00 p.m., but they waited until 7:35 p.m. before
calling the infirmary: a delay of three and a half hours. In any event, we have
held that “[e]ven a brief delay may be unconstitutional.” M ata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d
745, 755 (10th Cir. 2005). The alleged several-hour delay in M r. Kikumura’s
emergency medical treatment was more than sufficient to meet this standard, at
least for purposes of a motion to dismiss.
W e therefore find that M r. Kikumura has met the pleading requirements for
his Eighth Amendment claim against Officers Vail and Sanders.
3. Q ualified Immunity
W hen a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the plaintiff must
demonstrate not only that the defendant’s actions violated a specific constitutional
right, but also that the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time
the actions took place. M ata v. Saiz, 427 F.3d 745, 749 (10th Cir. 2005). In this
case, however, no party argues that the “deliberate indifference” standard for
claims of inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment was not clearly
established. Those standards have been clearly established at least since Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 at 104, decided in 1976. The dispute in this case is not
over the applicable constitutional standard, but over how it applies to these facts.
-56-
Since we conclude that the allegations in M r. Kikumura’s complaint are sufficient
to state an Eighth Amendment claim against M r. Osagie, Officer Vail, and Officer
Sanders, we reverse the district court’s finding that these defendants are entitled
to qualified immunity.
D. Failure to File a Certificate of Review
Under Colorado law, litigants who bring a claim “based upon the alleged
professional negligence of . . . a licensed processional” m ust “file w ith the court a
certificate of review . . . within sixty days after the service of the complaint . . .
unless the court determines that a longer period is necessary for good cause
show n.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602(1)(a). This certificate of review must
declare that the plaintiff’s attorney, or the plaintiff himself in a pro se action, see
Yadon v. Southward, 64 P.3d 909, 912 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002), “has consulted a
person who has expertise in the area of the alleged negligent conduct,” and that
“the professional who has been consulted . . . has concluded that the filing of the
claim . . . does not lack substantial justification.” § 13-20-602(3)(a). W e have
previously held that “Colorado’s certificate of review requirement is a substantive
rule of law,” and is therefore “applicable to professional negligence claims
brought against the United States under the FTCA.” Hill v. Smithkline Beecham
Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1117 (10th Cir. 2004). Since M r. Osagie is a physician’s
assistant, and therefore a licensed professional, M r. Kikumura is required to file a
-57-
certificate of review in support of his FTCA claims based on M r. Osagie’s alleged
negligence.
M r. Kikumura twice asked the magistrate judge to extend the deadline for
filing a certificate of review and to appoint counsel to help him contact an expert,
explaining that as an “incarcerated prisoner, [he has] no means to contact by
himself . . . a doctor who could provide him with such a certification.” M ot. for
Extension of Time & Appointment of Counsel 2. He told the magistrate judge
that he was trying “to obtain an attorney who could execute a ‘certificate of
review,’” but he had written to numerous law offices, which he listed, and each of
them had either declined or not responded to his request for representation. Id. at
3.
Five months later, the magistrate judge issued an order recommending that
M r. Kikumura’s entire action be dismissed and his outstanding motions be denied
as moot. Noting that seven months had passed since the deadline for filing a
certificate of review, the magistrate judge found that M r. Kikumura had a “de
facto ‘extended period of time’” to meet the requirements of Colo. Rev. Stat. §
13-20-602, and that there was no point in granting a further extension. M ag. Rec.
36. The magistrate judge therefore recommended dismissing M r. Kikumura’s
three FTCA claims based on M r. Osagie’s alleged malpractice (i.e., claims seven
-58-
through nine), along with his FTCA claim based on M r. Osagie’s outrageous
conduct (i.e., claim eleven). 14
In his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, M r. Kikumura
challenged the denial of his motion requesting appointment of counsel and an
extension of time to file a certificate of review. He also filed a separate motion
with the district court requesting appointment of counsel and an extension of time
to file a certificate of review. In both filings, M r. Kikumura argued that unless he
was appointed counsel and allowed more time to file a certificate of review, Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602 would unconstitutionally hinder his access to the courts as
a pro se litigant and prisoner. Obj. to M ag. Rec. 25; M ot. for Reconsideration 1.
The district court affirmed the m agistrate judge’s order denying M r.
Kikumura an extension of time and appointment of counsel, explaining that the
magistrate judge’s decision “is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.”
Order 3. The court then addressed M r. Kikumura’s separate motion requesting
appointm ent of counsel and an extension of time to file a certificate of review,
which it treated “as a newly-filed motion before [it]” rather than as an objection
to the magistrate judge’s ruling. Id. The court “independently agree[d] with the
magistrate judge that [M r. Kikumura] ha[d] had ample time to submit such a
Certificate.” Order 4. Additionally, because “more than a dozen legal offices and
14
M r. K ikumura does not challenge the decision to apply Colo. Rev. Stat. §
13-20-602 to his FTCA claim based on M r. Osagie’s “outrageous conduct.”
-59-
law professors . . . declined his request” for legal assistance, the district court
found that M r. Kikumura’s “claims have been reviewed on their merits by a
number of attorneys and found to be without merit.” Id. at 4. Finally, the court
held that there was “no constitutional infirmity in the statute’s application in this
case” because it “applies to all litigants pro se or otherwise, whether a prisoner or
not.” Id. at 5.
On appeal, M r. Kikumura argues that the district court abused its discretion
by denying his requests for appointment of counsel and for an extension of time
to file a certificate of review. M r. Kikumura again states that he “has no choice
but to ask the Court for an appointment of counsel who could execute the
certificate of review” because “his diligent searching for a lawyer was in vain and
he is indigent, having no fund[s] to hire an expert for a certification.”
Appellant’s Br. P19-18, P19-20. Additionally, M r. Kikumura complains that
other than the “short list” of attorneys in the prison’s legal office directory, “the
prison provide[s] the prisoners no information” that would allow them to locate
an independent medical expert, and thus he “is deprived of any meaningful means
to access . . . the experts outside.” Id. at P19-18–P19-19, P19-20. He also
disputes the inference drawn by the district court that his failure to find an
attorney implies that his claims lack merit. M r. Kikumura attributes his inability
to find a lawyer to the fact that he is “a prisoner,” and this is a “pro bono case,
and not a class action.” Id. at P19-19. Finally, M r. Kikumura argues that unless
-60-
he is appointed an attorney and allowed more time to file a certificate of review,
applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602 to his case “would result in fundamental
unfairness impinging on plaintiff’s due process rights.” Id. at P19-20 (citing
M cCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 838 (10th Cir. 1985)). 15
W e believe that M r. Kikumura has raised a non-trivial constitutional
challenge to the application of Colorado’s certificate of review requirement as
applied in this case. At the same time, however, the record below is insufficient
for us to evaluate M r. Kikumura’s due process argument on appeal. There is no
evidence regarding how a maximum security prisoner at ADX would go about
obtaining the opinion of a medical expert on his case, how long this would take,
or even whether it is feasible. The district court’s observation that Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 13-20-602 “applies to all litigants pro se or otherwise, whether a prisoner
or not,” Order 5, does not address the core of M r. Kikumura’s claim, which is that
the certificate of review requirement “unconstitutionally hinder[s]” his “access to
15
The D efendants argue that M r. Kikumura waived his due process
argument by failing to raise it before the magistrate judge. The district court
recognized that M r. Kikumura’s constitutional challenge to the certificate of
review requirement appeared “[f]or the first time” in his objections to the
magistrate judge’s recommendations, and therefore did not address the due
process issue in its de novo review of the magistrate judge’s decision. Order 2, 3.
Nonetheless, the district court considered (and denied) the due process objection
on its merits in connection with what it called a “newly-filed motion before [the
district court]” for appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file a
certificate of review . Order 4–5. Consequently, the due process argument is
properly presented to us on appeal.
-61-
the court[s]” and therefore violates his “due process rights.” Appellant’s Br. P19-
18. As the Supreme Court explained in Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371
(1971), “a statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it
operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity
as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond
question.” Id. at 379. On remand, the district court should conduct a more
thorough inquiry into the factual and legal bases of M r. Kikumura’s due process
challenge to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-602. It may also reconsider its denial of
M r. Kikumura’s motion for an extension of time to file a certificate of review in
light of the due process concerns implicated by such a denial.
E . T he R emaining FT CA C laims
1. Negligent M isrepresentation
W hen the Correctional Officers first took M r. Kikumura to the infirmary,
they were told by M r. Osagie that he was malingering and there was “nothing
wrong with [him].” Am. Compl. 19. M r. Kikumura alleges that this was
“negligent misrepresentation” actionable under the FTCA. Id. at 18–19. But the
United States has not waived its sovereign immunity from “[a]ny claim arising
out of . . . misrepresentation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Consequently, the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over M r. Kikumura’s negligent
-62-
misrepresentation claim against the United States, and we affirm the district
court’s order dismissing the claim.
2. Negligent Failure to Refer or Consult & O utrageous Conduct
M r. Kikumura claims that soon after Officers V ail and Sanders took him
from the infirmary back to his cell, they saw that he had “collapsed on the floor
around [the] toilet, severely vomiting . . . [and] screaming ‘help me’ all hour.”
Am. Compl. 21. M r. Kikumura alleges that, despite the “foreseeable . . . great
risk of harm to [him],” Officers Vail and Sanders “negligently failed to refer or
consult [his] emergency medical condition to . . . medical personnel who could
treat [him] promptly until around [7:35 p.m.].” Id. His complaint asserts a right
of recovery against the United States under the FTCA for the Correctional
Officers’ alleged “negligent failure to refer and consult,” and their “outrageous
conduct.” Id. at 20–21.
Following the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court
dismissed both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. It also dismissed the “negligent failure to refer and
consult” claim on the ground this was not a cognizable cause of action under
Colorado law, and therefore not subject to suit under the FTCA. W e consider
each point in turn.
The district court’s jurisdictional ruling is slightly mysterious. It appears
that the court based its ruling on our holding in United States v. Agronics Inc.,
-63-
164 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1999), where we found that the Federal M ine Safety and
Health A dministration “cannot be held liable under the FTCA for adverse
financial repercussions resulting from the determination of its own regulatory
jurisdiction.” Id. at 1347. The rationale for our holding in Agronics was that “the
FTCA’s w aiver of sovereign immunity is limited to conduct for which a private
person could be held liable under state tort law, and federal statutory duties
regarding peculiarly administrative acts generally involve ‘a type of conduct that
private persons could not engage in, and hence could not be liable for under local
law.’” Id. at 1346 (citations omitted) (quoting Sea Air Shuttle, 112 F.3d 532, 537
(1st Cir. 1997)). Applying Agronics to this case, the magistrate judge concluded
that any “duty that the [Correctional] Officers might have toward plaintiff arises
solely because of the relationship between correctional officers and plaintiff as a
prisoner,” and thus is “‘a type of conduct that private persons could not engage
in.’” M ag. Rec. 42, 43 (quoting Agronics, 164 F.3d at 1346). “In such
circumstances,” the magistrate judge found, “the United States may not be sued in
tort under the FTCA.” Id. at 43. The district court adopted this finding.
W e agree with M r. Kikumura that this ruling “is in error” because Agronics
“is not applicable to [his] case.” A ppellant’s Br. P19-21. W here prison officials
ignore an inmate’s cries for help, as M r. Kikumura alleges, those prison officials
are not engaging in the sort of “federal statutory duties regarding peculiarly
administrative acts” that we were referring to in Agronics. Our holding in
-64-
Agronics is limited to government actors engaged in “‘quasi-legislative’ or ‘quasi-
judicial’ action,” Agronics, 164 F.3d at 1345 (internal quotation marks omitted),
and thus has no bearing on M r. Kikumura’s FTCA claims based on the conduct of
Officers Vail and Sanders. In fact, the district court’s holding appears to be
foreclosed by United States v. M uniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963), where the Supreme
Court held that actions filed “under the Federal Tort Claims Act to recover
damages from the United States Government for personal injuries sustained
during confinement in a federal prison, by reason of the negligence of a
government employee . . . are within the purview of the Act.” Id. at 150.
The district court’s second reason for dismissing the two claims – that M r.
Kikumura failed to exhaust his administrative remedies – is also incorrect. The
court apparently based its decision on M r. Kikumura’s original administrative tort
claim from September 2002, which failed to mention the possible wrongdoing of
Officers Vail and Sanders. As the Defendants concede, however, M r. Kikumura
corrected this mistake three months later, when he filed a second administrative
tort claim identifying Officer Vail and Officer Sanders as tortfeasors. The
Defendants therefore do not defend this holding on appeal. Appellees’ Br. 56 n.5.
W e commend the Defendants’ candor, and agree that M r. Kikumura’s two FTCA
claims based on the conduct of Officers Vail and Sanders cannot be dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-65-
The district court’s final reason for dismissing M r. Kikumura’s “negligent
failure to refer or consult” FTCA claim, which is not applicable to the
“outrageous conduct” claim, is that Colorado does not recognize a tort of “failure
to refer or consult.” The government’s consent to be sued under the FTCA
extends only to claims arising out of “circumstances where the United States, if a
private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the
place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The district
court found that because Colorado does not recognize a general duty to “refer or
consult” medical personnel whenever someone around you becomes ill, M r.
Kikumura’s “negligent failure to refer or consult” claim is not cognizable under
the FTCA.
As a general matter, the district court is correct that Colorado law imposes
no duty “upon a person to take action for the protection of another even if it is
reasonably apparent that such action is necessary to protect the other person from
injury or peril.” Solano v. Goff, 985 P.2d 53, 54 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). But
Colorado also recognizes exceptions to this rule. In determining whether the
defendant owed a legal duty to help the plaintiff, Colorado courts look to the
following five factors: “(1) the existence of a special relationship between the
parties; (2) the foreseeability of harm to others; (3) the social utility of the
defendant’s conduct; (4) the magnitude of the burden of guarding against injury
or harm; and (5) the practical consequences of placing a duty upon the
-66-
defendant.” Id. “Other considerations may also be relevant,” and “[n]o one
factor is controlling” under this test. Taco Bell, Inc. v. Lannon, 744 P.2d 43, 46
(Colo. 1987). Ultimately, Colorado courts frame “the question of whether a duty
should be imposed in a particular case [as] essentially one of fairness under
contem porary standards — whether reasonable persons w ould recognize a duty
and agree that it exists.” Id.
Although Colorado courts have not yet addressed whether prison officials
owe a duty of care to inmates regarding their medical needs, based on Lannon, w e
find that they would recognize a duty of care here. Applying the “fairness under
contemporary standards” test to the facts as alleged by M r. Kikumura —
including his “obvious” need for assistance, cries for help, and complete
dependency on the prison staff — we have no doubt that “reasonable persons”
would have recognized a duty for Officers Vail and Sanders to call the prison
infirmary on M r. Kikumura’s behalf. The five-factor test outlined in Solano
reaches the same result. There is clearly a “special relationship” between M r.
Kikumura and the C orrectional Officers, since, as a federal inmate, M r. Kikumura
is dependent upon and under the control of ADX prison and its staff. M oreover,
based on the allegations in the complaint, the Correctional Officers’ inaction
posed an obvious risk of harm to M r. Kikumura. W e see very little “social
utility” in allowing correctional officers to ignore an inmate’s calls for help, and
the burden of requiring them to call the prison infirmary is light. Finally, we note
-67-
that there appear to be few, if any, negative “practical consequences” from
requiring prison guards to call the infirmary when inmates are in obvious need of
emergency medical treatment. Federal Regulations already require the Bureau of
Prisons to “provide for the safekeeping, care, and subsistence of all persons” in
their custody. 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(2). Likewise, the Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 314A (1965) imposes a duty on “[o]ne who is required by law to take . . .
the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his
normal opportunities for protection,” including the requirement “to give them first
aid after it knows or has reason to know that they are ill or injured, and to care for
them until they can be cared for by others.” M oreover, most states that have
considered the issue have held that “a jailer incurs a duty to exercise reasonable
care in protecting inmates’ health and safety.” Wallin v. Hill, No. Civ. A.03 CV
280 W DM M JW , 2005 W L 1924663, at *10 (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2005) (collecting
the cases). Consequently, we find that M r. Kikumura’s “negligent failure to refer
or consult” claim would be actionable under Colorado law, and is therefore
cognizable under the FTCA.
Since M r. Kikumura’s FTCA claims based on the Correctional Officers’
“negligent failure to refer or consult” and “outrageous conduct” are both properly
exhausted and actionable under the FTCA, we reverse the district court’s order
dismissing these claims.
-68-
3. Respondeat Superior & Failure to Train and Supervise
The final cause of action asserted in M r. Kikumura’s complaint is an FTCA
claim based on the Supervisory Defendants’ “negligent . . . failure to provide
adequate training and supervision to their staff.” A m. Compl. 22. According to
M r. Kikumura, the Supervisory Defendants’ negligence was the “actual and
proximate cause” of his injuries. Id. Similar to the PLRA’s exhaustion
requirement, the FTCA “requires that claims for damages against the government
be presented to the appropriate federal agency by filing . . . a written statement
sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own
investigation.” Bradley v. United States ex rel. Veterans Admin., 951 F.2d 268,
270 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). M uch like the
administrative grievances submitted by M r. Kikumura in connection with his
Bivens claims, the administrative tort claims he filed with the BOP fail to mention
the possibility that his injuries were caused by the inadequate training and
supervision of A DX staff. For the same reasons that we found M r. Kikumura
failed to exhaust his Bivens claim against the Supervisory Defendants, we also
find that he failed to exhaust his “respondeat superior and/or supervisory
liability” FTCA claim.
Because w e find that the district court properly dismissed both of M r.
Kikumura’s claims based upon allegations of inadequate training and supervision
of A DX staff, we also affirm the district court’s order denying M r. Kikumura’s
-69-
motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin BOP officials from destroying
records relevant to those two claims.
III. C ON CLU SIO N
For the reasons stated above, we
(1) reverse the dismissal of the Eighth A mendment claims against M r.
Osagie;
(2) reverse the dismissal of the Eighth A mendment claim against Officers
Vail and Sanders;
(3) affirm the dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim against Captain
Bauer, Captain Greenwood, W arden Pugh, and Assistant W arden Burrell;
(4) reverse the dismissal of the FTCA claims based upon M r. Osagie’s
alleged professional negligence and outrageous conduct;
(5) affirm the dismissal of the FTCA claim based upon M r. Osagie’s
alleged negligent misrepresentation;
(6) reverse the dismissal of the FTCA claims based upon Officers Vail and
Sanders’s alleged negligent failure to refer or consult and outrageous conduct;
(7) affirm the dismissal of the FTCA claim based upon Captain Bauer,
Captain Greenwood, W arden Pugh, and Assistant W arden Burrell’s alleged
respondeat superior liability and negligent training and supervision; and
-70-
(8) affirm the denial of a temporary restraining order requiring retention of
BOP records relating to training and supervision.
W e remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this opinion, including the reconsideration of M r. Kikumura’s motion for
appointment of counsel and an extension of time to file a certificate of review.
Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Appellant is
reminded oh his obligation to continue to make partial payments until the entire
fee is paid.
-71-
Yu Kikumura v. Osagie
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date filed: 2006-09-08
Citations: 461 F.3d 1269
Copy CitationsCombined Opinion