Cesar Cordoba v. Marvin Morrison

155 F. App'x 933

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Former federal inmate Cesar Cordoba sued the United States Bureau of Prisons and various prison officials, asserting under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) that he was injured as a result of defendants’ negligent failure to train him to use certain machinery safely during his UNI-COR employment. Cordoba also asserted a retaliation claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The district court 1 dismissed Cordoba’s Bivens claim after he failed to provide proof of exhaustion. The magistrate judge 2 dismissed without prejudice Cordoba’s FTCA claim upon finding that his sole remedy against the government was a claim under the Federal Prison Industries’ Inmate Accident Compensation (IAC) system. See 18 U.S.C. § 4126; 28 C.F.R. §§ 301.101-.319. Cordoba appeals both rulings.

Following careful review of the record and Cordoba’s arguments on appeal, we believe that Cordoba’s claims were properly dismissed. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (exhaustion); 18 U.S.C. § 4126 (inmate compensation for injuries); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (prisoner cannot bring Bivens action involving prison conditions before exhausting available administrative remedies); United States v. Demko, 385 U.S. 149, 151-54, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258 (1966) (§ 4126 is exclusive remedy for federal inmates’ work-related injuries, and FTCA actions which seek recovery for such injuries are barred). In particular, the district court was not bound by an Institution Safety Committee’s finding — which, as Cordoba was advised, was subject to review by an IAC Committee upon his filing of an IAC claim — that his injury was not work-related; the record does not indicate Cordoba pursued an available remedy by filing an IAC claim; and Cordoba did not allege retaliation, or even facts from which a retaliation claim could be inferred, in his prison grievances.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1 . The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2 . The Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).