Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02796/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02796-0/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 

M. FRANK WATSON; BETTY L. WATSON; 

BRIAN HARJO WATSON, a minor, by and 

through his mother and next friend, 

Betty L. Watson, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FI LED 

U!lited Seate~ Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 8 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 88-2796 

BILL WEAVER; TOM NEWTON; ANDREWS. 

HARTMAN; ANDREWS. HARTMAN, P.C., 

an Oklahoma corporation; BARKLEY, 

RODOLF, WHITE & HARTMAN, a law 

firm composed of Michael Barkley, 

Charles Michael Barkley, P.C., an 

Oklahoma corporation, Stephen J. 

Rodolf, Jay B. White, Andrew S. 

Hartman, Andrews. Hartman, P.C., 

an Oklahoma corporation, Sandra 

Rodolf and Denise G. Hartman; 

S & T GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, INC., 

an Oklahoma corporation; JOHN DOE; 

JANE DOE; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

OF OKMULGEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) (D.C. No. 87-412-C) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

* 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: 88-2796 Document: 01019974342 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal the district court's orders and 

judgments of September 27, 1988, entering summary judgment in 

favor of each of the defendants. Plaintiffs1 instituted the 

underlying action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 for violations of 

their fourth and fifth amendment rights when certain defendants 

forcibly entered their home and seized their property, pursuant to 

a writ issued in aid of execution. 

We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same standard as the district court under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Osgood v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Based upon our review of the record on appeal and the 

parties' briefs, we conclude that under no theory should 

plaintiffs' case proceed against any defendants other than Andrew 

S. Hartman, Bill Weaver, and Tom Newton. Therefore, the district 

court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the other 

defendants. 

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of 

Messrs. Hartman, Weaver, and Newton on the grounds that plaintiffs 

1 The original plaintiffs in this action consisted of Mr. and 

Mrs. Watson and their minor son, Brian. During the pendency of 

the district court case, Mr. and Mrs. Watson filed bankruptcy and 

the trustee of their estate substituted for them as a party 

plaintiff. In addition, Brian reached the age of majority. 

2 

.. 

Appellate Case: 88-2796 Document: 01019974342 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 2 
had an adequate state law remedy for their alleged injuries, 

relying on Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in 

part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). 

While Parratt may apply to plaintiffs' due process claims under 

the fifth amendment, it does not apply to plaintiffs' claims for 

unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment. See 

Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 472 n.l (10th Cir. 1985), cert. 

denied, 474 U.S. 1101 (1986); King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 827 

(9th Cir. 1986); Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 

1984); Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864, 872 (7th Cir. 1983). 

Since the district court incorrectly applied Parratt to 

plaintiffs' fourth amendment claim, we must reverse the court's 

entry of summary judgment in favor of Messrs. Hartman, Weaver, and 

Newton and remand the action so that the court may consider 

plaintiffs' claim in the first instance. In so doing, we express 

no opinion .as to the merits of plaintiffs' claim. 

Plaintiffs argue on appeal that their fifth amendment claim 

is so intertwined with their fourth amendment claim that they 

should be permitted to proceed in federal court on both claims, 

rather than having their fifth amendment claim dismissed due to 

adequate state remedies. On remand, the district court should 

consider plaintiffs' fourth amendment claim on its own and as it 

may be intertwined with the fifth amendment claim. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-2796 Document: 01019974342 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 3 
part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this 

order and judgment. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

. . 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-2796 Document: 01019974342 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 4