Murphy v. United States ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 26 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BARTON LEE MURPHY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-1000
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (District of Colorado)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; (D.C. No. 96-S-1946)
WILLIAM PERRILL, Warden; and
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION, ENGLEWOOD,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Barton L. Murphy appeals 1 the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) of Murphy’s complaint for damages against the United
States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346,
2671-80. Murphy alleged that the United States violated his Eighth Amendment
rights by exposing him to “asbestos containing material” at the Federal
Correctional Facility at Englewood, Colorado. The district court dismissed as
frivolous and malicious all causes of action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; and 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, on the ground that those exact same claims had been raised
and decided in a prior suit brought by Murphy. The district court dismissed
Murphy’s claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, on the ground that as a private
citizen, Murphy had no standing to institute a federal criminal prosecution and no
power to enforce a criminal statute. Finally, as to Murphy’s claims under the
FTCA, the district court held that those claims failed on two grounds: (1) the sole
1
Murphy’s frivolous and malicious Emergency Motion for Stay of the
district court order imposing fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (April 26, 1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)), is hereby DENIED. Mr. Murphy is hereby notified that he is under a
continuing obligation to pay the filing fee in this appeal as provided in the district
court’s orders of January 14, 1997, and January 27, 1997. Failure to pay the fees
as required by the district court’s orders will be recorded by the Office of the
Clerk of the Court of the United States Court of Appeals. Information regarding
failure to pay fees as required by law will be provided to this court upon the filing
of any future appeals in the Tenth Circuit.
-2-
basis of Murphy’s complaint was an alleged violation of Murphy’s Eighth
Amendment rights, a constitutional tort that is not actionable under the FTCA,
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 477-78 (1994); and (2) Murphy’s claims of
“potential physical and actual emotional damages” were not actionable because
the FTCA requires incarcerated felons to show physical injury, 28 U.S.C. §
1346(b)(2). This court exercises jurisdiction over Murphy’s appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court may dismiss an in forma
pauperis action as frivolous if the “claim [is] based on an indisputedly meritless
legal theory” or if it is founded on “clearly baseless” factual contentions. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). This court reviews the dismissal
of a complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for abuse of discretion. See
Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997).
This court has reviewed Murphy’s briefs and contentions, as well as the
entire record on appeal. Upon review, we affirm for substantially the reasons set
forth in the district court’s well-reasoned Order of Dismissal dated November 27,
1996. We further note that Murphy’s appeal is frivolous or fails to state a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for purposes of counting “prior occasions” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. Murphy is hereby notified that three filings of cases
that are dismissed or affirmed on the basis that they are frivolous or fail to state a
-3-
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) will result in him being unable to proceed pro se
under the provisions of § 1915.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-