McBayne v. Pugh , 85 F. App'x 109 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 22 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ANTHONY RANDAZZO
MCBAYNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 03-1228
(D.C. No. 03-Z-549)
v. (D. Colo.)
MICHAEL V. PUGH, in his individual
capacity, Former Warden, ADX-
Florence; DANIEL SHOFF, in his
individual capacity, Former S.I.A.,
ADX-Florence; MARK COLLINS, in
his individual capacity, ADX-
Florence,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony McBayne, a federal prisoner incarcerated at
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
United States Penitentiary (USP) in Florence, Colorado, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint for damages filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
district court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous under the standard set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Because we agree with the district court that Mr.
McBayne has not alleged a violation of a protected constitutional right, we affirm
the dismissal of this action as frivolous under § 1915A(b).
Mr. McBayne is a federal prisoner who from 1997 to 2001 was incarcerated
at USP Florence, Colorado. Upon arrival at USP Florence in 1997, Mr. McBayne
was accepted into the pre-transfer program through which inmates may earn a
transfer to a lower security facility. Mr. McBayne alleges that in December 2000,
prison officials approached him requesting his assistance with an ongoing
investigation into allegations that prison guards were accepting money and gifts
from inmates in exchange for contraband. Mr. McBayne denied any culpability
and refused to cooperate. Following his refusal, Mr. McBayne was issued two
reports of misconduct, which caused his removal from the pre-transfer program.
The two misconduct reports were later dismissed and Mr. McBayne was reinstated
to the pre-transfer program. He was subsequently transferred to USP Allenwood,
Pennsylvania.
Mr. McBayne further alleges that once he arrived at Allenwood, federal
-2-
investigators continued to request his assistance with their ongoing investigation.
He continued to refuse. In April 2002, Mr. McBayne was transferred back to USP
Florence because of his continued refusal to cooperate with investigators. The
specific reason for the transfer was his refusal to take a polygraph exam
concerning information he previously provided. R. Doc. 4, Ex. 8.
To succeed in a Bivens action, Mr. McBayne must demonstrate that federal
officials violated his constitutional rights while acting under color of federal law.
Dry v. United States, 235 F.3d 1249, 1255 (10th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Mr.
McBayne alleges that defendants retaliated against him because he elected to
exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the
Fifth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the majority of Mr. McBayne’s claims due to
his failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit as required by 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Mr.
McBayne appeals this determination, but a review of the record indicates that the
district court was correct that Mr. McBayne had failed to exhaust remedies for
every claim except that of retaliatory treatment by prison staff for exercise of his
constitutional right against self-incrimination. We therefore consider only that
claim on appeal.
Though commitment to a penal facility may limit an inmate in the exercise
-3-
of his constitutional rights, inmates may not be retaliated against for exercising
those constitutional rights they do retain. Frazier v. DuBois, 922 F.2d 560, 561
(10th Cir. 1990). An inmate must prove that “but for” the retaliatory motive, the
adverse action would not have occurred. Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140,
1144 (10th Cir. 1998). In his pro se brief, Mr. McBayne alleges that, contrary to
the holding of the district court, his refusal to cooperate with federal investigators
constituted an invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination
and was motivated by a desire to avoid criminal prosecution. For two reasons, we
disagree. First, Mr. McBayne did not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights at the
time of his initial questioning and he may not resurrect them now. Second, the
district court reasonably interpreted Mr. McBayne’s claim to assert a right not to
cooperate with authorities, rather than a violation of any constitutional right.
The fact that Mr. McBayne is a federal prisoner does not serve to strip him
of his privilege against self incrimination. McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 36
(2002) (plurality opinion). Fifth Amendment protections, however, may not be
invoked retroactively. See Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 559 (1980)
(“The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not self-
executing. At least where the Government has no substantial reason to believe
that the requested disclosures are likely to be incriminating, the privilege may not
be relied upon unless it is invoked in a timely fashion.”); United States v. Rogers,
-4-
921 F.2d 975, 979 (10th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff admits to cooperating with the
authorities and giving a statement, but then refusing to sign a statement, take any
polygraph exam, or further cooperate. R. Doc. 5 at 20-23, 25, 27-28, 31-32, 36.
On May 2, 2002, Mr. McBayne wrote a letter reminding the warden that
McBayne had “a constitutional right not to be a witness against [him]self and not
to cooperate with any law enforcement agents in their investigation where [he]
may be a defendant.” R. Doc. 4, Ex. 7 at 2. However, in his lengthy affidavit of
March 3, 2003, Mr. McBayne repeatedly states that he denied any involvement in
the offenses being investigated. See, e.g., R. Doc. 5 at 1, 4. Consistent with 42
U.S.C. § 1915A, we think it was reasonable for the district court to construe Mr.
McBayne’s complaint as asserting a right not to cooperate with law enforcement
authorities, rather than asserting a right to be free of compulsory self-
incrimination. Plainly, a “right to remain silent” does not encompass the former,
as concealment of crime has always been disfavored. See 18 U.S.C. § 4(misprision of a felony); Roberts, 445 U.S. at 557-58; Branzburg v. Hays, 408
U.S. 665, 696-97 (1972).
Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. McBayne’s
action. Mr. McBayne is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We would
-5-
remind Mr. McBayne that he must continue to make payments until the entire
filing fee has been paid.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-6-