John J. McCarthy v. Mr. Maddigan, Dr. Perry Dr. Walter Dr. Delmuro
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah (District Court, D. Utah 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
ORDER
Mr. McCarthy, a federal prisoner, filed a Bivens 1 — type civil action seeking monetary damages for the alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The district court, relying upon Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1086, 100 S.Ct. 1045, 62 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980), dismissed the claim without prejudice as Mr. McCarthy failed to demonstrate he had made use of the administrative review process provided by the Bureau of Prisons. We affirmed, being bound by our precedent in Brice. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir. 1990).
The Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision holding that exhaustion of the Bureau of Prison’s administrative procedure is not required before a federal prisoner can initiate a Bivens action solely for monetary damages. See McCarthy v. Maddigan, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992).
We therefore recall our mandate and reverse the order of the district court and remand this case to the district court for such further proceedings as may be just and proper in accordance with the decision of the United States Supreme Court.
The mandate shall reissue forthwith.
. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.