Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01099/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01099-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stato11 Court of Appt,ala Tenth Circnit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BAR.RY L. WESLEY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF COLORADO; ) 

JOAN FINNEY, Governor, State of Kansas; ) 

GOVERNOR ROMER; TIM LAHEY, District ) 

Court Judge, Sedgwick County ) 

Courthouse, Wichita, Kansas; DAVID ) 

DEWEY, District Court Judge, Sedgwick ) 

County Courthouse, Wichita, Kansas; ) 

DEBRA BARRNET' Assistant District ·) 

Attorney, Wichita, Kansas; DON AUTRY, ) 

Adult Probation Office, Wichita, Kansas;) 

NORM EARLY, District Attorney, Denver, ) 

Colorado; JUDGE SPRIGGS, Denver, ) 

Colorado; JOHN DOES, Sheriff of Denver, ) 

and Chief of Police; GARY SHOTTS, ) 

Secretary of Corrections, Topeka, ) 

Kansas; JOHN DOE, KBI, Topeka, Kansas; ) 

ROBERT D. HANNIGAN, Warden, ) 

Hutchinson, Kansas, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 191992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-1099 

(D.C. No. 92S71) 

(Dist. of Colo. ) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

* 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: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 1
materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Barry L. Wesley (Wesley~, prose plaintiff below, appeals, 

from the district court's Order accepting the 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in dismissing 

Wesley's civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 

1983, 1985 and 1986. Wesley sought monetary damages. 

On appeal, Wesley argues that the parties who are responsible 

for the direct violations of his rights should be held accountable 

under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments 

to the United States Constitution. Wesley's objection to the 

magistrate judge's Recommendation to dismiss was based on similar, 

general constitutional contentions, as was his Brief in Support of 

Objection to Dismiss. (R., Vol. I, Tabs 10 and 11). 

We AFFIRM the district court's Order of dismissal 

substantially for the reasons set forth in the "Recommendation of 

United States Magistrate Judge" dated March 11, 1992, a copy of 

which is attached hereto • .IQ., Tab 8. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 2
,----· 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 92-S-71 

BARRY L. WESLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

-vs.-

STATE OF COLORADO, et al., 

Defendants. 

i-lLtu . ED STAJU DISnt1cr cour. 0 .... 

E~vu. CDLOIIADO 

MAR 11 1992 

JAMES R. MAN:SPEAKER 

------- CLEP 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Barry L. Wesley initiated this action by filing a 12I:Q se 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 u.s.c. SS 1983, 1985 and 1986 

alleging that his rights under the United States Constitution have been 

violated. He seeks monetary damages. 

Pursuant to Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United 

States District Court of the District of Colorado, this matter has been 

referred to Magistrate Judge Richard M. Borchers. On February 6, 1992, 

the Court issued a show cause order to allow Petitioner the opportunity 

to respond to and to provide any legal basts upon which the claims and 

parties should continue in the case . ~ Hall v, Bellman, 935 F.2d 

1106 (10th cir.1991). Plaintiff responded to that order on March 6, 

- 1992. In his response, he requested permi~sion to amend the complaint 

to add additional Defendants. Based upon a review of the complaint and 

the applicable law, a recommendation is made that the complaint be 

dismissed and that the request to add additional Defendants be denied. 

1 

~. . ·. . 

.. 

' ' . '· 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 3
As Plaintiff is representing himself, his complaint will be 

construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); 

Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir.1979). A complaint must 

1 - be dismissed if, accepting the allegations as true, it appears beyond 

doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim 

that would entitle him to relief. Scheuer y. Rhodes, 416 u.s. 232, 236 

(1974); Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir.1988). 

Plaintiff alleges that the State of Kansas falsely indicated that 

Plaintiff was wanted for "bail jumping" when, in fact, he was wanted 

for a probation violation. Based on the inaccurate warrant from 

Kansas, Plaintiff was arrested in Denver, Colorado on April 21, 1991. 

The Uniform criminal Extradition Act (UCEA), Colo.Rev.stat. S 16-19-101 

et seq., directs a demanding state to serve a governor's warrant on the 

asylum state within ninety days. Plaintiff alleges that he was held in 

the Denver County Jail for over ninety days without a governor's 

warrant being served. He asserts that this failure to comply with the 

UCEA violated his rights under the United states Constitution. 

Plaintiff has named the State of Colorado and the State of Kansas 

as Defendants. States are not subject to suit under 42 u.s.c. S 1983. 

Will v. Michigan Dep•t of state Police, -.-u.s. __ , 109 s.ct. 2304, 

2311 (1989). In his response to this Court's order to show cause, 

- Plaintiff requests that these Defendants be dismissed. Accordingly, 

the States of Colorado and Kansas should be dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff also has named Roy Romer, Governor of the State of 

Colorado, and Joan Finney, Governor of the State of Kansas, as 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 4
Defendants. -The governor of an asylum state is immune from liability 

in carrying out his extradition functions. Smith v. Lamm, 629 F.Supp. 

1184, 1185 (D.Colo.1986). Plaintiff does not contend that the Governor 

,---- of Kansas either caused or participated in the alleged violations. In 

his response to the order to shoe cause, Plaintiff concedes that these 

Defendants should be dismissed from this action. 

_,,-.. 

Plaintiff has named a number of Defendants who reside in the State 

of Kansas. In order for a federal court to retain jurisdiction over 

any party under the Due Process Clause, the court must have not only 

subject matter jurisdiction, but must also have personal jurisdiction. 

International Shoe co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945). In 

order to retain personal jurisdiction over any defendant, the defendant 

must meet the requirement of minimum contacts with the forum state. It 

is generally held that there must have been "some act by which the 

defendant purposely (availed himself] of the privilege of conducting 

activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and 

protection of its laws." Hanson y, Denckla. 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). 

The Kansas Defendants do not have minimum contacts with the State of 

Colorado which would give this Court jurisdiction over them. 

In addition, venue is not proper in the District of Colorado. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their individual 

capacities. Therefore, the proper venue in this case is under 28 

u.s.c. S 1391(b) which provides that a civil action not founded solely 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 5
on diversity may be brought only in: 

1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 

defendants reside in the same state; 

2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the 

action is situated; or 

3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found if 

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be 

brought. 

28 u.s.c. S 139l(b) (West Supp. 1991). Plaintiff apparently seeks to 

hold the Kansas Defendants liable for issuing an allegedly false arrest 

warrant and failing to comply with certain provisions of the UCEA. 

These acts and omissions took place in the State of Kansas. Thus, the 

Kansas Defendants should be dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff has named Denver District Judge Spriggs as a Defendant. 

A judge has absolute immunity from a civil rights suit for damages 

while acting in his or her official capacity. stumpy, Sparkman, 435 

u.s> 349, 356-57 (1978); Van Sickle y, Holloway. 791 F.2d 1431, 1435-36 

(10th cir. 1986) • .8.ll .A.l§2 Pressly v, Gregory. 831 F.2d 514 (4th cir. 

1987). Judge Spriggs should be dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff has named Denver District Attorney Norman Early as a 

Defendant. Prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for money 

damages in civil rights actions. Imbler y, Pachtman, 424 u.s. 409, 

430-41 (1976); Wilson y, stocker. 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th cir.1987). 

Thus, Norman Early should be dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff has named the Denver County Sheriff and the Denver Chief 

of Police as Defendants. There are no allegations that these 

Defendants personally participated in any of the alleged violations. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 6
Personal participation is an essential allegation in a S 1983 action. 

Bennett v, Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir.1976); Massey v, 

Wilson, 484 F.Supp. 1332, 1333 (D.Colo.1980). These Defendants cannot 

,- be held liable by virtue of their supervisory position on a theory of 

respondeat superior. Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947 (10th Cir.1991). 

These Defendants should be dismissed from this action. 

In his response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff seeks to add 

the City of Denver as a Defendant. A municipality may be held liable 

only for constitutional deprivations resulting from a "custom or 

policy." See City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 817 

(1985); Ross v, Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1355 (10th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff 

has not alleged any unconstitutional act by any Defendant that 

implements a policy, ordinance or custom. ~ Monell v. Dep•t of 

social services, 436 u.s. 658, 690, 694 (1978); Garcia v, Salf Lake 

County. 768 F.2d 303, 308 n.4 (10th Cir.1985). Plaintiff's request to 

amend the complaint to add the City of Denver as a Defendant should ·be 

denied. 

Plaintiff also seeks to add the Superintendent of the Denver 

County Jail as a Defendant. Although the complaint does not 

specifically allege the basis of Plaintiff's cause of action against 

this Defendant, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to add this Defendant 

because he had custody of Plaintiff past the ninety_-day statutory 

period. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution 

guarantees that a person shall not be denied liberty without due 

process of law. Plaintiff has presented no facts which would tend to 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 7
show how this Defendant participated in any alleged denial of due 

process. Plaintiff's request to add this Defendant should be denied. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Barry L. Wesley's 

complaint be dismissed; and 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's request to amend his 

complaint to add additional Defendants be denied. 

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that under Rule 605 of the Local Rules of 

Practice of the United states District Court for the District of 

Colorado, the parties shall have ten days after service hereof to file 

any written objections with the assigned District Judge. The party 

filing an objection must specifically identify those findings or 

recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court 

need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A 

party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings 

and recommendations contained in this document may bar the party from a 

~ novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings 

and recommendations. United states v, Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-

83(1980); 28 u.s.c. S636(b) (1). Additionally, the failure to file 

written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 

ten days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party 

from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are 

accepted or adopted by the District court. Thomas v, Arn, 474 u.s. 

140(1985). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of Local Rule 605 be attached to 

the copy of this Recommendation sent to Plaintiff. 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 8
, 

-

DATED and ENTERED this ~ar-oryarch, 

. / 

.BY THE COURT·: _,/ 

.,./ ,·- ... ~ .. -·· 

RICHARD M. BORCHERS 

1992. 

United States Magistrate Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 9
LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE 

Rule 605 

Prisoner Petitions 

A. Subject to provisions of the United States Supreme Court Rules governing 

§ 2254 and § 2255 cases, the uniform rules of ancillary forms for use in _the district 

courts within the Tenth Circuit have been adopted. These rules apply to ..E!£ 

se petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2241 and § 2754 

. and motions under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and to civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Copies of the uniform rules and ancillary 

forms shall be made available upon request made to the clerk. 

B. When presented for filing, ..E.!£~ petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, 

and ~ ~ complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall be delivered to a magistrate 

who shall review the motion and affidavit to proceed .!!!_ forma pauperis and rule 

thereon in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If the motion ls granted, the 

magistrate shall promptly revie_w the file and, if there ls any basis for jurisdiction 

and possible merit, the magistrate shall direct the clerk to make service of process. 

C. If the magistrate determines · that the case may be dismissed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or F.R.Civ.P. 12, the magistrate shall prepare a 

recommendation and appropriate order for consideration by a district judge, 

who shall at that time be selected as provided in Rule 200. 

D. These cases shall be assigned to a district judge drawn by lot and to a 

designated magistrate. The assigned magistrate shall review promptly all further 

pleadings and may: 

1. Issue such orders as may be needed to obtain a complete record. 

2. Coqduct such evidentiary hearings as may be necessary, including the 

conduct of on-site depositions and investigations. 

3. Prepare appropriate findings and recommendations for consideration 

by the district judge, copies of which shall be mailed to the parties 

who shall have ten (10) days after service thereof to serve and file 

specific written objections thereto. If no such objections are timely 

filed, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations may 

be accepted by the district judge and appropriate orders entered 

without further notice. 

4. Obtain the expected release date of inmates filing complaints under 

42 U.S.C. § · 1983 to determine when plaintiffs may be available for 

trial. 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 10
,,,.--._ 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Case No. 92-5-71 

Barry L. Wesley, #44033 

HCF 

P.O. Box 1568 

Hutchinson, KS 67504-1568 

I certify that I 

person listed above on 

Appellate Case: 92-1099 Document: 010110285783 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 11