Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    Tootle v. Uitenham, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes Samuel Tootle's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his claims for damages against defendants Fabias Uitenham and Mark Andersen. Tootle, a military prisoner, claimed the defendants retaliated against him for seeking additional time to work on legal documents by moving him to a tier requiring more stairs, exacerbating a knee injury. The district court dismissed the damages claims under the Feres doctrine, which bars military personnel from suing for injuries sustained in the course of service. The appeals court affirms the dismissal, finding Tootle's injuries were incident to his military service under Feres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Tootle v. Uitenham, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    43 views3 pages
    This order summarizes Samuel Tootle's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his claims for damages against defendants Fabias Uitenham and Mark Andersen. Tootle, a military prisoner, claimed the defendants retaliated against him for seeking additional time to work on legal documents by moving him to a tier requiring more stairs, exacerbating a knee injury. The district court dismissed the damages claims under the Feres doctrine, which bars military personnel from suing for injuries sustained in the course of service. The appeals court affirms the dismissal, finding Tootle's injuries were incident to his military service under Feres.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-06-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-3292

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This order summarizes Samuel Tootle's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his claims for damages against defendants Fabias Uitenham and Mark Andersen. Tootle, a military prisoner, claimed the defendants retaliated against him for seeking additional time to work on legal documents by moving him to a tier requiring more stairs, exacerbating a knee injury. The district court dismissed the damages claims under the Feres doctrine, which bars military personnel from suing for injuries sustained in the course of service. The appeals court affirms the dismissal, finding Tootle's injuries were incident to his military service under Feres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    43 views3 pages

    Tootle v. Uitenham, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This order summarizes Samuel Tootle's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his claims for damages against defendants Fabias Uitenham and Mark Andersen. Tootle, a military prisoner, claimed the defendants retaliated against him for seeking additional time to work on legal documents by moving him to a tier requiring more stairs, exacerbating a knee injury. The district court dismissed the damages claims under the Feres doctrine, which bars military personnel from suing for injuries sustained in the course of service. The appeals court affirms the dismissal, finding Tootle's injuries were incident to his military service under Feres.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    JUN 29 2004

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    SAMUEL E. TOOTLE, II,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    FABIAS UITENHAM, MSG, Ft.
    Leavenworth, KS; MARK
    ANDERSEN,

    No. 03-3292
    (D.C. No. 01-CV-3092-GTV)
    (D. Kan.)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before HENRY , MURPHY , and TYMKOVICH , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case 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.

    Samuel E. Tootle, II, appeals pro se from the district courts orders
    dismissing his claims for damages against the defendants. At the time he filed
    this action, Tootle was a military prisoner in the United States Disciplinary
    Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and his claims arise out of injuries he
    alleges that he sustained there. The district court dismissed Tootles damage
    claims, relying on the Feres doctrine, see Feres v. United States , 340 U.S. 135
    (1950), as applied to military prisoners in

    Ricks v. Nickels , 295 F.3d 1124 (10th

    Cir.), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1056 (2002). We affirm.


    Although he sought both damages and injunctive relief in his complaint, all
    of Tootles issues on appeal concern the denial of his claims for monetary relief
    under the Feres doctrine. In his statement of facts, he explains that after he
    sought and obtained additional time to work on court documents, defendants
    retaliated against him by moving him to a tier that required him to climb
    additional flights of stairs, exacerbating his knee injury. He argues (1) that the
    district court erred in determining that his injuries were incident to service
    under Feres ; (2) that the dismissal of his request for monetary relief denied him
    equal protection and violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
    Constitution by discriminating against military prisoners; and (3) that application
    of the Feres doctrine to military prisoners creates a suspect class of prisoners.
    Aplt. Br. at 2.
    -2-

    A dismissal under the Feres doctrine is properly treated as a dismissal


    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    F.3d at 1127. We review such dismissals

    Ricks , 295

    de novo . Id. Upon review, we affirm

    the challenged dismissal for substantially the same reasons stated by the district
    court in its original order of partial dismissal of September 25, 2002, and its order
    denying reconsideration dated September 22, 2003.
    The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The mandate shall
    issue forthwith.

    Entered for the Court

    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like