Mercado vs. Wiley, No. 06-1155 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS October 3, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court R ALPH M ER CA D O , Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. W ILEY, Present W arden; R. HOOD, Pass [sic] W arden; M . BARBEE, Safety Specialist; R. BAUER, Health Services Administrator; CHUCK TURNER, Pass [sic] Facilities, M anager; M ARK M ASER, Heating Ventilation A/C Forem an; JO H N D OE #1, U nknown Facilities Officer; J. W ADAS, Correctional Officer; H. TRAPP, Pass [sic] N urse Practitioner; R . C URRIN, C orrectional O fficer; R . SM ITH, Educational Officer; HA RRELL W ATTS, Central Office A dm inistrator; JO H N O R JA N E DOE #2, Unknown, No. 06-1155 District of Colorado (D.C. No. 05-CV-2306-ZLW ) Defendants - Appellees. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 (continued...) Before M U RPH Y, SE YM OU R, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges. On November 15, 2005, Ralph M ercado, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against various prison officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). He alleged that he did not receive immediate medical attention for an asthma attack caused by chemical fumes emitted during a replacement of the hot water heat exchanger in his prison unit. He also alleged that two of the defendants conspired to make false statements on his medical records in response to his grievance. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with regards to his conspiracy claim. Although M r. M ercado appeals the district court s dismissal, his submissions to this Court articulate no grounds for doing so. The order of dismissal is therefore affirmed. In conjunction with his brief on appeal, M r. M ercado filed a M otion for Leniency, which explained that at the time the appeal was filed, he believed that failure to appeal would result in his claims being time barred if he refiled after * (...continued) conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- exhausting administrative remedies. W e do not decide whether the statute of limitations will have run if M r. M ercado refiles his claim, as it does not have bearing on whether or not his appeal is frivolous. The motion before the court does not appear to request any relief that we have authority to grant, and is therefore denied. Because M r. M ercado fails to raise any nonfrivolous argument in support of his appeal, see M cIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997), we deny his M otion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal W ithout Prepayment of Costs or Fees. The district court s judgment is AFFIRM ED. Appellant s M otion for Leniency is DENIED. The Plaintiff s M otion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal W ithout Prepayment of Costs or Fees is DENIED. M r. M ercado shall remit the full amount of the filing fee to the Clerk of the District Court within thirty (30) days of this order, in accordance w ith his request in the M otion filed on A ugust 21, 2006. Any other motions are DENIED. Entered for the Court, M ichael W . M cConnell Circuit Judge -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
