Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03139/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03139-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

F 1 LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE8B St1no1 Court of Appeals 

.,.."'nth c;m,it 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN WILLIAM HYSELL, JR., } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellant, } 

} 

v . } 

} 

NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., } 

and its agents, PATRICIA MELLENBRUCH, } 

JUSTICE B. KING, POLK COUNTY FEDERAL } 

SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF DES } 

MOINES, and its agents, MISSOURI VALLEY} 

INVESTMENT CO., T. L. WASSON, } 

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, } 

VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, and its agents,) 

WILLIAM R. DUNLOP, JAMES A. GOETE, } 

EARL G. CARTMILL, R. L. DEAN, } 

DON WATERS, S. C. KNOPP and MR. & MRS. } 

PAUL J. PURSEL, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

M y 3 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3139 

(D.C. No. 85-4304-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

o f Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* 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 . 

Appellate Case: 89-3139 Document: 01019969767 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff appeals from a district court order awarding 

defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's claims asserted 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) and the Federal Tort Claims 

Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 (1982). 1 Plaintiff alleged 

defendants conspired with a state court judge to deprive plaintiff 

of his right to due process during pretrial proceedings in a state 

court action, and to deprive him of property without due process. 

Plaintiff further alleged the Veterans Administration (VA) 

defendants deprived him of property and otherwise injured him as 

the result of their negligence in handling his home loan, 

guaranteed by the VA, after foreclosure proceedings and the 

destruction of the home by fire. 

This court will review an order granting summary judgment de 

novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. See Ewing v. Amoco Oil Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 

(10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no 

genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

In order to recover under§ 1983, plaintiff must establish 

that defendants deprived him of a right guaranteed by the 

Constitution and laws of the United States while acting under 

color of state law. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 

1 Plaintiff does not appeal from the district court's 

awarding summary judgment on plaintiff's claims asserted 

to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1985, 1986, and 1988. 

2 

order 

pursuant 

Appellate Case: 89-3139 Document: 01019969767 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 2 
144, 150 (1970). Defendants, acting in their private capacity, 

may be liable under§ 1983 if they conspired with state officials 

to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. See id. at 

152. 

A plaintiff attempting to establish state action under§ 1983 

by implicating state officials in a conspiracy with private 

individuals must plead specific facts tending to show agreement 

and concerted action among the alleged conspirators. Hammond v. 

Bales , 843 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir. 1988). Where, as in this 

case, the state official is absolutely immune from§ 1983 damages 

liability, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978), 

"plaintiff must demonstrate 'the existence of a significant nexus 

or entanglement between the absolutely immune state official and 

t he private party in relation to the steps taken by each to 

fu l fill the objects of their conspiracy. 111 Hammond, 843 F.2d at 

13 2 3 (quoting Norton v. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375, 1380 (10th Cir. 

1980)). 

Plaintiff contends defendants and the state court judge 

conspired to deny plaintiff due process. In support of his 

conspiracy claim, plaintiff asserted the following: 

For defendants to imply that Judge Bullock did allow 

this case to proceed in the manner it did without his 

having knowledge of what went on, and that he did not 

allow it to go on, and did not participate in it, thus 

allowing attorneys to run his court, is to insult Judge 

Bullock's intelligence, legal expertise and to brand him 

a fool. 

Plaintiff will not buy this nor allow it to be 

implied. 

Judge Bullock knew what was going on, allowed it to 

go on and was in agreement to what went on, or it would 

not have happen[ed]. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3139 Document: 01019969767 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 3 
Plaintiff's Reply to Northwestern's Reply to Plaintiff's Motion to 

Deny Summary Judgment at 3-4. 

Plaintiff's allegation that the state court judge was 

involved in a conspiracy with defendants by allowing the state 

court case "to proceed in the manner it did" is insufficient to 

state a cause of action under§ 1983. Sooner Prods. Co. v. 

McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983) (allegations that 

state court judge was aware of conspiracy and was involved in 

conspiracy, as evinced by judge's ruling against plaintiff, 

insufficient to state a§ 1983 cause of action); see also Durre v. 

Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989) (§ 1983 conspiracy 

claim dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege specific facts 

showing agreement and concerted action); Shaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 

1259, 1260-61 (10th Cir. 1980) (communication between immune judge 

and attorneys before each hearing did not support a claim that 

they were conspiring to deprive plaintiff of a fair trial), cert. 

denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981). 

Additionally, plaintiff's§ 1983 claims and any potential 

claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), are barred under principles of 

res judicata and collateral estoppel by the decisions of the 

Kansas courts in the state proceedings. See Koch v. City of 

Hutchinson, 814 F.2d 1489, 1493-94 (10th Cir.), reh'g granted on 

other grounds, 847 F.2d 1435 (10th Cir. 1987). The Kansas Supreme 

Court upheld the state trial court's determination that plaintiff 

lacked an insurable interest in his home at the time of its 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3139 Document: 01019969767 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 4 
, 

destruction by fire and therefore could not recover under the 

insurance policy, in light of plaintiff's failure to redeem the 

property during the foreclosure proceedings. Northwestern Nat'l 

Ins. Co. v. Hysell, No. 57,491, slip op. at 6-9 (Kan. Feb. 21, 

1986). Further, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the state 

pretrial proceedings did not deny plaintiff due process. Id. at 

9-10. 

The district court did not specifically address plaintiff's 

FTCA claims in its order awarding defendants summary judgment. 

Nonetheless, plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the FTCA 

because he failed to allege or establish that he had exhausted 

administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (1982); Lurch v. 

United States, 719 F.2d 333, 335 n.3 (10th Cir. 1983), cert. 

denied, 466 U.S. 927 (1984). The district court thus lacked 

jurisdiction to address the merits of plaintiff's FTCA claims. 

See Lurch, 719 F.2d at 335 n.3. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's request for the 

reversal of the district court's award of costs to defendants is 

DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-3139 Document: 01019969767 Date Filed: 05/03/1990 Page: 5