Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03219/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03219-0/pdf.json

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

---

...,. .. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

EC 2 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ROLLY O. KINNELL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT H. MILLER and 

DISTRICT JUDGE ROBERT BISHOP, 

Defendant-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-3219 

(D.C. No. 90-3201-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Rally Kinnell appeals a district court 

order dismissing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for money 

damages and equitable relief based on alleged violations of the 

first and sixth amendments. On appeal, Kinnell argues the 

district court erred in finding: (1) Chief Justice Robert Miller 

of the Kansas Supreme Court and Judge Robert Bishop of the 

* 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. 

··.;._,;'', .:.'.;of,:_,··:· ., 

Appellate Case: 90-3219 Document: 010110097321 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 1 
. : _.- •··:.;· 

·-~ 

Di strict Court of Cowley County were entitled to absolute immunity 

from a section 1983 action for money damages, and (2) the petition 

was frivolous because Kinnell was seeking to act as a fellow 

inmate's attorney. We affirm. 

Kinnell submitted pleadings action to the District Court of 

Cowley County on behalf of an inmate in April 1990. Judge Robert 

Bishop returned the pleadings to Kinnell without filing them 

because Kinnell is not qualified to serve as legal counsel for 

another person. Kinnell then wrote Chief Justice Robert Miller of 

the Kansas Supreme Court challenging the propriety of Judge 

Bishop's action. A letter from Chief Justice Miller's office 

advised Kinnell that state law prohibits him from representing 

another person in court. 

Kinnell contends he was prejudicially denied due process and 

an opportunity to present facts about the actions of Judge Bishop 

and Chief Justice Miller because of the application of the 

doctrine of absolute immunity. We disagree. It is settled law 

that the doctrine of absolute immunity protects a judge from a 

section 1983 claim for money damages as long as he acts within the 

scope of his subject matter jurisdiction and in his judicial 

capacity. Stump~ SparJanan, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Van 

Sickle~ Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986). Because 

both Judge Bishop and Chief Justice Miller sit in courts of 

general jurisdiction, they acted within the scope of their subject 

matter jurisdiction. Judge Bishop acted within his judicial 

capacity in refusing to file the pleadings. Likewise, Chief 

Justice Miller acted within his judicial capacity in writing a 

2 

:., 

Appellate Case: 90-3219 Document: 010110097321 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 2 
- M 

letter explaining the legal basis for Judge Bishop's action. In 

performing these tasks, both judges were engaged in interpreting 

and applying state law, which prohi~its a person who is not a 

licensed attorney from filing pleadings or otherwise acting as 

counsel for another person. See Stephan Y...!... O'Keefe, 235 Kan. 

1022, 1034-36, 686 P.2d 171 (1984). We hold Judge Bishop and 

Chief Justice Miller are protected from this section 1983 action 

for money damages by the doctrine of absolute immunity. 

Kinnell also contends the district court erred in dismissing 

his claim for equitable relief. We are convinced the district 

court was correct in finding the petition is frivolous since 

Kinnell sought to act as a fellow inmate's attorney. We hold 

Kinnell's action for equitable relief is frivolous and fails to 

state a consitutional claim under section 1983. 

Because we find Kinnell has advanced a reasoned argument on 

the law and facts in support of his claim, see Coppedge Y...!... United 

States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan Y...!... Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (1962), we 

GRANT the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and AFFIRM. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3219 Document: 010110097321 Date Filed: 12/20/1990 Page: 3