Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06282/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06282-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United Scates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 1991 

TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER ------------ Clerk 

ROBERT DALE MCKINNEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Department 

of Human Services, Shawnee, OK - Unknown names representing 

McKinney Children; KEN CADARET, 

Director of Health Services; 

BILLIE CLARK: JOHN G. CANAVAN, 

JR.; BILL ROBERSON, District 

Attorney of Pottawatomie County; 

POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY BOARD OF 

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6282 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-488-W) 

Submitted on the Briefs* 

Robert Dale McKinney, pro se. 

William D. Simpson, Assistant District Attorney, Pottawatomie 

County, Shawnee, Oklahoma, Janna S. Geitgey, Assistant General 

Counsel, Department of Human Services, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma for 

Defendants-Appellees. 

* After exam~n~ng 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiff-appellant Robert Dale McKinney appeals pro se from 

the dismissal of his 42 u.s.c. S 1983 civil rights complaint 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). He also seeks leave to proceed 

on appeal in forma pauperis, the district court having denied his 

petition to appeal in forma pauperis. See lOth Cir. R. 24.1. 

Plaintiff sought $360,000 in damages against state, tribal 

and county officials for alleged civil rights violations arising 

out of his felony conviction and a juvenile proceeding involving 

his minor children. The district court held that the eleventh 

amendment barred plaintiff from proceeding against the Oklahoma 

Department of Human Services. u.s. Const. am. XI. It also found 

that his allegations against the remaining defendants were 

"frivolous, improper and totally void of merit" and dismissed the 

entire action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d). See McKinney v. 

State of Okla., No. CIV-90-488-W, unpub. order at 2, 4 (W.O. Okla. 

June. 25, 1990). 

"Any court of the United States may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 

proceeding, civil or criminal ..• without prepayment of fees and 

costs • • • by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to 

pay such costs or gives security therefor ... 28 u.s.c. S 1915(a). 

However, a court also "may dismiss the case if the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2 
malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). In Neitzke v. ·Williams, 109 S. 

Ct. 1827 (1989) the Supreme Court explained that this section 

accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim 

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but 

also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 

complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims 

whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Examples of the former class are claims against which it 

is clear that the defendants are immune from suit, §gg, 

~' Williams v. Goldsmith, 701 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 

1983), and claims of infringement of a legal interest 

which clearly does not exist • . • • Examples of the 

latter class are claims describing fantastic or 

delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district 

judges are all too familiar. 

Id. at 1833. 

Dismissals under § 1915(d) are governed by a legal standard 

distinct from dismissals pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal whenever a complaint fails to 

state a claim on which relief can be granted "without regard to 

whether [the claim] is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a 

close but ultimately unavailing one." Id. at 1832. In contrast, 

whenever a plaintiff states an arguable claim for relief, 

dismissal for frivolousness under § 1915(d) is improper, even if 

the legal basis underlying the claim ultimately proves incorrect. 

Id. at 1833. Further, whereas district courts proceeding under 

Rule 12(b)(6) must accept as true all of a plaintiff's wellpleaded factual allegations, § 1915(d) allows district courts to 

"pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations." Id. 

Finally, while a district court may dismiss pursuant to § 1915(d) 

~sponte, see id. at 1831, "[u]nder Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff 

with an arguable claim is ordinarily accorded notice of a pending 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 3 
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and an opportunity 

to amend the complaint before the motion is ruled upon,u id. at 

1834. 

The Supreme Court in Neitzke expressly declined to rule on 

the propriety of ~ sponte dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). Id. at 1835 n.8. However, in Baker v. Director, United 

States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam), 

the D.C. Circuit held 11 that a trial court may dismiss a claim ~ 

sponte without notice 'where the claimant cannot possibly win 

relief.'" Id. at 726 (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., 813 F.2d 

986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987)). See also 5A c. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1357 at 301 (2d ed. 1990) 

(district court may dismiss §YS sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6)). Although the preferred practice is to accord a 

plaintiff notice and an opportunity to amend his complaint before 

acting upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we 

agree with and adopt the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit and hold 

that a~ sponte dismissal under Rule 12{b)(6) is not reversible 

error when it is 11 patently obvious" that the plaintiff could not 

prevail on the facts alleged, ~Baker, 916 F.2d at 727, and 

allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would be 

futile, see generally Huxall v. First State Bank, 842 F.2d 249, 

240 n.2 (lOth Cir. 1988) (recognizing §Yg sponte dismissal of 

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and approving district court's denial of 

motion for leave to amend complaint where such amendment would be 

futile). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 4 
We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal construing 

plaintiff's pro se pleadings liberally as required by Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 u.s. 519, 520 (1972). We agree with the district 

court that the eleventh amendment bars plaintiff from seeking 

money damages against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. 

See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 109 s. Ct. 2304, 2311-

12 (1989). We also find plaintiff's claims against the District 

Attorney, Assistant District Attorney and Court Clerk of 

Pottawatomie County precluded by the doctrines of prosecutorial 

immunity and judicial immunity. See Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 

673, __ -_, __ -_ (lOth Cir. 1990); Christensen v. Ward, 916 

F.2d 1462, 1473-75 (lOth Cir. 1990); Valdez v. City and County of 

.Denver, 878 F. 2d 1285, 1288-89 (lOth Cir. 1989). Finally,_ we 

conclude that the actions of the Director of Health Services for 

the Citizen Band Pottawatomie Tribe were not under color of state 

law for the purposes of maintaining plaintiff's suit against him 

under 42 u.s.c. S 1983. See Evens v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1347 

(9th Cir. 1989); R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 

719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 472 u.s. 1016 

(1985). 

Defendants clearly were immune from suit and plaintiff's 

complaint alleged "infringement of a legal interest which clearly 

[did] not exist." See Neitzke, 109 s. Ct. at 1833. Consequently, 

plaintiff's action was properly dismissed under S 1915(d). See 

id; Goldsmith, 701 F.2d at 604. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 5 
Plaintiff's petition to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis 

is GRANTED. The district court's dismissal of his action is under 

§ 1915(d) is AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-6282 Document: 01019725770 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 6