Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06399/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06399-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

GEORGE RICHARDSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

AP~ 18 1990 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

Nos 89-6288, 89-6399 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-597-P) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

JAMES MITCHELL; JIM WEST, 

Deputy; R.C. DANIELS, Deputy; 

and ELLIS CABANISS, Attorney, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines o f the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6399 Document: 01019971478 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 1 
34(a); -- 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is · therefore ordered 

George Richardson appeals orders dismissing his civil rights 

complaint against the assistant district attorney who prosecuted 

him on a narcotics violation, the attorney who defended him, and 

the deputy sheriffs who investigated the case against him. The 

district court dismissed the claim against the prosecutor on 

grounds of absolute immunity. The complaint against defense 

counsel was dismissed on the ground he was not a state actor. 

Dismissal was entered on the remaining claims when Mr. Richardson 

failed to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss in 

accordance with the local rule of court. 1 

Mr. Richardson's appeal is predicated upon the assertion the 

trial court dismissed the case "without giving Plaintiff a chance 

to present evidence and facts to prove his case." He argues Mr. 

Mitchell is not entitled to immunity because he was not acting 

within his role as prosecutor. He does not address the dismissal 

of the complaint against the remaining defendants. 

We have examined the complaint and find no averment that Mr. 

Mitchell was acting outside the scope of duties in connection with 

Mr. Richardson's claims against him. Giving the complaint the 

most liberal reading, there is no way we can construe the alleged 

acts of which he stands accused in any way other than having been 

committed as a deputy district attorney. The district court did 

not, therefore, err in granting absolute immunity to Mr. Mitchell. 

1That dismissal was made subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), but 

plaintiff commenced this appeal without seeking relief in the 

district court. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6399 Document: 01019971478 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 2 
-

For this reason and the reasons- set-£orth in the trial court's 

order of dismissal, we -AFFIRM the - judgment of the district court. 

Entered for the Court 

John P . Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6399 Document: 01019971478 Date Filed: 04/18/1990 Page: 3