Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01553/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 7 19 0 

REX A. SHARP; KEITH WILSON; 

JAMES H. MORAIN; DANIEL H. 

DIEPENBROCK; TAMMIE E. KURTH, 

as individuals; NEUBAUER, SHARP, 

MCQUEEN, DREILING & MARAIN, P.A., 

as a firm, and ALL OTHER LAWYERS AS 

A CLASS REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF 

KANSAS TO REPRESENT KANSAS INDIGENT 

CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

STATE OF KANSAS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-1553 

(D.C. No. 88-1001) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District 

District Court for the District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Colorado, sitting by 

Plaintiffs-appellants are attorneys who have provided legal 

services to indigent criminal defendants pursuant to the Indigent 

* 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: 88-1553 Document: 01019969826 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 1 
Defense Services Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-4501 through -4536 

(1988). 

On December 15, 1987, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the 

court appointment system was constitutionally defective. State ex 

rel. Stephan v. Smith, 242 Kan. 336, 747 P.2d 816, 849-50 (1987). 

The court ordered the state district court to continue a modified 

system of appointment until July 1, 1988. See also Sharp v. 

Kansas, 245 Kan. 749, 783 P.2d 343, 348 (1989)(affirming summary 

judgment against appellants' claims in state court). 1 

Subsequently, appellants initiated suit against the State of 

Kansas seeking retrospective relief (past money damages) and 

prospective relief (mandamus order concerning fees to be paid in 

the future). Appellants alleged continuing constitutional 

violations. The district court dismissed the case on eleventh 

amendment grounds. We affirm. 

The eleventh amendment embodies a broad constitutional 

principle of sovereign immunity, and the long line of Supreme 

Court cases, starting with Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), 

which have applied eleventh amendment immunity to suits by a 

citizen against its own state, will not be overruled absent 

special justification for such departure from the doctrine of 

stare decisis. Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp., 

483 U.S. 468, 478-88 (1987). Only the United States Supreme Court 

may overrule its own precedent. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. 

1 Appellant's motion to strike appellee's statement 

supplemental authority filed January 2, 1990, is hereby denied. 

2 

of 

Appellate Case: 88-1553 Document: 01019969826 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 2 
Jordan K. Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535 (1983). Unless and until 

such change of direction is issued by the Supreme Court, this 

court is bound by the Welch holding. 

State waiver of sovereign immunity, ~' by statutory 

provision, is one exception to a strict application of eleventh 

amendment sovereign immunity. However, "a State will be deemed to 

have waived its immunity only where stated by the most express 

language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as 

[will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction." 

_A_t_a_s_c_a_d_e_r_o __ S_t_a_t_e __ H_o_s~p __ . __ v_. __ S_c_a_n_l_o_n, 473 U.S. 234, 239-40 

(1985)(quotations omitted). The State of Kansas has made no such 

waiver to expose itself to the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' 

arguments for lifting the eleventh amendment bar are without 

merit. 

We have also considered the congressional abrogation and 

pendent state claims arguments raised by appellant and find them 

to be without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1553 Document: 01019969826 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 3