Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04162/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 1 7 1992 

ROBERT L. OECI{R-n WILLIAM L. ECHOLS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

SANEH L. ECHOLS, WILLIAM J.B. ECHOLS, 

MICHAH S. ECHOLS, COURTNEY P. ECHOLS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AMERICAN FORK INVESTORS, a California ) 

Limited Partnership, doing business as ) 

American Self Storage; STEVEN J. ) 

NELSON, RANDY MELLOR, by and through ) 

their attorney, LYNN P. HEWARD; ) 

JOHN BACKLUND, Judge of the Fourth ) 

Circuit Court; JOSEPH DIMICK, Judge of ) 

the Fourth Circuit Court; ANTHONY R. ) 

FERNLUND, Constable; MICHAEL ERICKSON, ) 

Deputy Constable of Utah County; ) 

RUSSELL W. BENCH, Judge of the Utah ) 

Court of Appeals; NORMAN H. JACKSON, ) 

Judge of the Utah Court of Appeals; ) 

GREGORY K. ORME, Judge of the Utah ) 

Court of Appeals; REGNAL W. GARFF, JR., ) 

Judge of the Utah Court of Appeals; ) 

JUDITH M. BILLINGS, Judge of the Utah ) 

Court of Appeals; PAMELA T. GREENWOOD, ) 

Judge of the Utah Court of Appeals; ) 

RICHARD C. DAVIDSON, Judge of the Utah ) 

Court of Appeals; GEOFFREY J. BUTLER, ) 

Clerk of the Utah Supreme Court, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JlJDGMENT* 

Nos. 91-4162 

92-4009 

(D. Utah) 

Clerk =L:. 

(D.C. No. 91-CV-203-J) 

* 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: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 1
Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 William L. Echols, appearing prose, brought this 

civil rights action against the following groups of defendants: 

(1) Judges John Backlund and Joseph Dimick, Judges of the Fourth 

Circuit Court for the State of Utah in American Fork, Utah; Judges 

Russell w. Bench, Norman H. Jackson, Gregory K. Orme, Regnal w. 

Garff, Judith M. Billings, Pamela T. Greenwood, and Richard C. 

Davidson, Judges of the Utah Court of Appeals; and Geoffrey J. 

Butler, the Clerk of the Utah Supreme Court (hereafter collectively the "State Defendants"); (2) Constable Anthony R. 

Fernlund and Deputy Constable Michael Erickson, constables for 

Utah County; and (3) American Fork Investors, a California Limited 

Partnership d/b/a American Self Storage ("American"); and 

American's principals, Steven J. Nelson and Randy Mellor, and 

Nelson's and Mellor's attorney, Lynn P. Heward. Echols purported 

to file the action on behalf of his wife, Saneh, and his three 

minor children. 

This case stems from a lawsuit American filed against Echols 

in Fourth Circuit Court, involving a dispute concerning a storage 

unit rental agreement entered into between Echols and American. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 2
The court ultimately granted summary judgment against Echols, 

directing him to vacate the self-storage units owned by American 

and which Echols had been occupying and entering judgment for 

American for unpaid rent, damages and attorneys fees. The Utah 

Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, and the Utah Supreme 

Court denied Echols' petition for writ of certiorari. Among the 

many orders and rulings entered in this case was one finding 

Echols in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions posed 

by Judge Backlund, for which Echols was jailed. Additionally, a 

writ of execution and Order of Sale was issued, directing the 

seizure and sale of Echols' property to satisfy the judgment 

entered against him, and the two defendant constables eventually 

conducted a sale. 

Echols then brought this action in the United States District 

Court for the District of Utah, asserting that various decisions 

entered by the State defendants violated his constitutional 

rights. 

All the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action. 

Through a series of orders, the district court: (1) granted the 

motions to dismiss with prejudice of the seven Utah Court of 

Appeals Judges and Supreme Court Clerk Butler, as well as the two 

circuit court judges, on the basis that they are entitled to judicial immunity; (2) instructed Echols that he could not represent 

his wife and children; and (3) after granting several extensions 

of time in which to file an amended complaint against the remaining defendants, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice as 

to all remaining defendants, holding that the constables were performing their duties under order of the state court and that 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 3
Echols had failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants. The court thereafter denied Echols' motion for reconsideration. Echols appeals from those rulings. 

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss. Thatcher 

Enterprises v. Cache County Corp., 902 F.2d 1472, 1473 (10th Cir. 

1990). "We will uphold a dismissal [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim] only when it appears that 

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims 

that would entitle the plaintiff to relief." Jacobs, Visconsi & 

Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

"A judge acting in his judicial capacity is absolutely immune 

from civil rights suits unless the judge acts clearly without any 

colorable claim of jurisdiction." Snell v. Turner, 920 F.2d 673, 

686 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1622 (1991); see 

also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Mee v. 

Ortega, No. 90-1288, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 13892 at *7 (10th Cir. 

June 18, 1992). That immunity does not dissolve when the judge is 

accused of acting maliciously or corruptly. Pierson v. Ray, 386 

U.S. 547, 554 (1967); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 559 (1990). There is no 

argument that the judges involved here acted without jurisdiction. 

The same immunity attaches to Supreme Court Clerk Butler, acting 

pursuant to directives by the Utah Supreme Court. See Briscoe v. 

LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 335 (1983); Wiggins v. New Mexico State 

Supreme Court Clerk, 664 F.2d 812, 815 (10th Cir. 1981 ) . The 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 4
constables are also entitled to immunity as "officials responsible 

for enforcing [court] orders." Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 

878 F.2d 1285, 1289 (10th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we affirm the 

dismissal of Echols' case against the state defendants, including 

the constables. 

We similarly affirm the district court's refusal to permit 

Echols to represent his wife and minor children in a class action 

suit. The court correctly held that "Echols, a non-lawyer, cannot 

represent the members of his family or of any proposed class of 

plaintiffs, though Mr. Echols is free to represent himself." R. 

Vol. II, Tab 30 at 2. See Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 

(10th Cir. 1986). 1 

Finally, we affirm the dismissal of Echols' complaint against 

the remaining defendants. His vague and ill-defined allegations 

that his civil rights were violated as a result of adverse rulings 

in the state court proceedings involving American are simply 

insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 

Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) ("conclusory 

allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient 

to state a claim on which relief can be granted."). 

1 It is not completely clear whether Echols appeals that order. 

His Notice of Appeal clearly designates only himself as appellant. 

However, he states that he appeals the district court's judgment 

dismissing his complaint "and from the whole of the judgment." R. 

Vol. II, Tab 71. We therefore address the propriety of the 

district court's ruling regarding Echols' representation of his 

family. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 5
Because Echols' arguments on appeal lack any rational basis, 

his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or 

fees is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The Appellees' 

motion for enlargement of time to file brief is DENIED. 

-6-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4162 Document: 010110276735 Date Filed: 08/17/1992 Page: 6