Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02307/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02307-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

14iL~U um~ Sta~ Court ut ~\s 

Tent.h Cireuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 0 1994 

DAVID CLYDE STARNES, SHANNON RUMLEY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 93-2307 

IVAN SMITH, Detective, in his individual) 

and official capacity; DESI GARCIA, ) 

Sergeant, in his individual and ) 

official capacity, ) 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a municipality 

within the State of New Mexico; THRIFT 

TOWN, INC., a New Mexico corporation; 

ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS OF 

ALBUQUERQUE, INC., a New Mexico 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-761-LFG) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Paul J. Kennedy, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

Appellants. 

for PlaintiffsLuis Robles, Assistant City Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for 

Defendants-Appellees Ivan Smith and Desi Garcia. 

Appellate Case: 93-2307 Document: 01019280382 Date Filed: 10/20/1994 Page: 1 
Before TACHA, BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and KANE,* Senior District 

Judge. 

*Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by 

designation. 

KANE, Senior District Judge. 

Plaintiffs David Starnes and Shannon Rumley appeal from a 

summary judgment dismissing their claims against defendants Desi 

Garcia and Ivan Smith.l Plaintiffs argue that 1) they were denied 

an opportunity to respond adequately to defendants' motion for 

summary judgment, 2) certain material facts remain disputed, and 

3) the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants 

was inconsistent with applicable case law. 

Plaintiffs' brief fails to comply with various rules found in 

Fed. R. App. P. 28 and lOth Cir. R. 28.2. In particular, the 

brief contains no statement of subject matter and appellate 

jurisdiction, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (2); no separate 

statement of the issues presented for review, as required by 

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (3); and no statement of the applicable 

standard of review before discussion of each issue in the argument 

portion of the brief, as required by lOth Cir. R. 28.2(b). Of 

particular concern is plaintiffs' failure to include a statement 

1 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-2307 Document: 01019280382 Date Filed: 10/20/1994 Page: 2 
of facts with supporting references to the record, as required by 

Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (4). 

Nevertheless, we have read and considered plaintiffs' 

arguments and are convinced that even if their brief had been in 

compliance with these rules, we would find their arguments to be 

meritless. See SEC v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 827 (lOth Cir. 1992). 

Therefore, the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The matter is referred to 

the clerk for institution of disciplinary proceedings against 

Attorney Paul J. Kennedy for repeated filings of an appellant's 

brief in violation of Fed. R. App. P. 28 and lOth Cir. R. 28.2, as 

set forth above. 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-2307 Document: 01019280382 Date Filed: 10/20/1994 Page: 3