Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06118/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06118-0/pdf.json

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

---

... 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

TPnth Circuit 

JUL 17 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

PAUL R. ROLFES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6118 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-965-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BRIGHT,** and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff Paul R. Rolfes appeals an order by the district 

court dismissing his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 claim against the City of 

Oklahoma City. Rolfes' complaint, which he brought on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, alleged that the City 

deprived him of liberty and property when it charged him with illegal trash dumping under an unconstitutional municipal ordinance. 

The district court, noting that Rolfes was not arrested or taken 

into custody and that the charges were dismissed without 

* 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 of the law of the case, 

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

** The Honorable Myron H. Bright, United States Circuit Judge, 

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 90-6118 Document: 010110128883 Date Filed: 07/17/1991 Page: 1 
prejudice, expressed doubt as to the constitutionality of the 

ordinance as worded, but found that Rolfes had not been sufficiently deprived of liberty or property to sustain a claim. 

We agree with the district court that Rolfes has failed to 

state an actionable claim. The law is clear that one who is accused under a constitutionally valid statute or ordinance, but who 

is later acquitted or has the charges dropped, is not entitled to 

assert a§ 1983 claim based simply on the fact that he has been 

charged. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145 (1979). ("The 

Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did,§ 1983 would provide a cause of action for 

every defendant acquitted--indeed, for every suspect released."). 

The result is no different if the ordinance is unconstitutional 

because it improperly shifts the burden of proof. See Richardson 

v. City of South Euclid, 904 F.2d 1050, 1053 (6th Cir. 1990), 

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 691 (1991) (ordinance unconstitutionally 

vague). There is no allegation here that Rolfes was singled out 

for discriminatory prosecution or that the ordinance was enacted 

specifically to charge him. He apparently was charged, as any one 

else would have been, because three items containing his address 

were found in trash in a field some distance from his home. 

The district court correctly noted that there are some 

mistakes legislators make and some impositions upon citizens that 

require expenditures of their time and money to resolve which are 

not compensable under§ 1983. This is one of those situations. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6118 Document: 010110128883 Date Filed: 07/17/1991 Page: 2