Barroca v. Maye
670 F. App'x 672
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Robert Barroca, a federal inmate, was transferred to USP-Leavenworth in July 2014 and had accumulated 26 boxes of legal materials over decades.
- Upon arrival only two boxes were found in his cell; the prison policy allowed one box in-cell and stored additional boxes in a storage room with weekly inmate access.
- Barroca lodged a formal complaint about missing boxes and the one-box policy on August 20; unknown to him, all 26 boxes had arrived on August 14.
- A prison official conducted a cell “shakedown” the same day Barroca filed his complaint; Barroca later reviewed his legal materials with a BOP attorney on September 29.
- Barroca sued under Bivens alleging (1) denial of access to the courts and (2) retaliation; the district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b) for failure to show actual injury or actionable retaliation.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, reviewing de novo and finding no cognizable actual injury to pending or contemplated litigation and no actionable retaliatory conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of access to courts | Lack of access to stored legal boxes and the one-box policy prevented prosecution of pending/contemplated claims | Policy and storage procedures are reasonable security measures; no actual injury shown | Affirmed dismissal — no actual injury to pending or contemplated litigation required by Lewis v. Casey |
| Actual injury to pending habeas (Rule 60(b)) | Loss/delay in access hindered amendment or filing that would affect habeas relief | District court denied Rule 60(b) on merits; amendment would have been successive and unwarranted | Affirmed — denial based on merits; no causal injury from access restrictions |
| Injury from delay to other pending action | Delay in accessing materials caused prejudice to other pending filings | Mere delay without showing actual prejudice is insufficient | Affirmed — delay alone does not establish actual injury |
| Retaliation for filing complaint (cell shakedown) | Shakedown immediately after complaint was retaliatory and chilling | Shakedown was an isolated, routine prison procedure and not substantially motivated by complaint | Affirmed — isolated shakedown insufficient to show chilling or retaliatory motive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishes implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (inmates have constitutional right of access to the courts)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (prison regulations may limit rights to preserve order and discipline)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (to state a denial-of-access claim plaintiff must show actual injury to pending/contemplated litigation)
- Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1992) (prisons may limit in-cell legal materials for security)
- Shero v. City of Grove, 510 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements required to plead retaliation claim)
- Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2012) (de novo standard of review for dismissal under § 1915)