Robert Lock v. John Gluch John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal Funds

Sixth Circuit

Robert Lock v. John Gluch John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal Funds

875 F.2d 865, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7107, 1989 WL 53382

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1989

Docket88-2078

StatusUnpublished

This text of 875 F.2d 865 (Robert Lock v. John Gluch John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal Funds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Lock v. John Gluch John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal Funds, 875 F.2d 865, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7107, 1989 WL 53382 (6th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

875 F.2d 865

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Robert LOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John GLUCH; John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal
Funds, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-2078.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 22, 1989.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Robert Lock appeals the dismissal of his complaint filed under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Lock alleged that monies deducted from his prison account were not timely credited toward a fine for the crime for which he is currently incarcerated. Defendants are the prison warden and an unknown "accounting officer."

Upon consideration, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed as frivolous but for reasons other than those given by the district court. See Davis v. Keohane, 635 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Russ' Kwik Car Wash, Inc. v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 772 F.2d 214, 216 (6th Cir.1985). A federal prisoner is required to show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons before he may proceed against prison officials under Bivens. Davis, 835 F.2d at 1148-49. Here, Lock has made no such showing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed without prejudice. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. See Davis, 835 F.2d at 1149.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

875 F.2d 865

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Robert LOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
John GLUCH; John Doe, Officer in Charge of Inmates Personal
Funds, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-2078.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 22, 1989.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr. and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and the briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Robert Lock appeals the dismissal of his complaint filed under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d). Lock alleged that monies deducted from his prison account were not timely credited toward a fine for the crime for which he is currently incarcerated. Defendants are the prison warden and an unknown "accounting officer."

Upon consideration, we conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed as frivolous but for reasons other than those given by the district court. See Davis v. Keohane, 635 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir.1987) (per curiam); Russ' Kwik Car Wash, Inc. v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 772 F.2d 214, 216 (6th Cir.1985). A federal prisoner is required to show that he has exhausted his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons before he may proceed against prison officials under Bivens. Davis, 835 F.2d at 1148-49. Here, Lock has made no such showing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed without prejudice. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. See Davis, 835 F.2d at 1149.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

875 F.2d 865, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7107, 1989 WL 53382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lock-v-john-gluch-john-doe-officer-in-charge-of-inmates-personal-ca6-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack