Case ID: f-appx_17/html/0933-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ronald E. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Beth GILMER-JONES, Detective, Junction City KS; Chris Biggs, Geary County Attorney, Junction City KS; Linda Barnes-Pointer, Public Defender, Junction City KS; Troy V. Huser, Attorney, Manhattan KS; Larry E. Bengston, District Judge, Junction City KS; Geary County Board of County Commissioners, Junction City, KS, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-3131.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Aug. 31, 2001.
    
      Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

BRISCOE, Circuit Judge.

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.

Ronald E. Hall, a state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

Hall filed his complaint on February 27, 2001, alleging violations of his Fifth Amendment due process rights, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, and his Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding (1) “no cause of action exists under § 1983 for the recovery of damages arising from an allegedly unconstitutional conviction where the challenged conviction has not been set aside”; (2) “both the county attorney and the state court judge are entitled to immunity”; (3) “plaintiffs allegations state no claim for relief against his appointed defense attorneys because these individuals are not considered state actors”; and (4) “plaintiffs claim for relief against the Board of County Commissioners is based solely on his conclusory assertion that the Board is responsible for the actions of the county employee.” Order at 1-3.

We agree with the district court’s analysis of the issues and AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons as stated in the district court’s order entered April 30, 2001. Hall is reminded of his obligation to continue making the payments toward his appellate filing fee until the entire fee has been paid. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.