Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06126/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06126-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

U!lited Staa Couctt of Appeals 

Tenrl"i Cif'•"'J!~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 11 @QO 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BILLY V. BEWLEY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JARI ASKINS, individually and as ) 

employee of the State of Oklahoma; ) 

CHARLES MCLOUGHLIN, individually and as ) 

employee of the State of Oklahoma; JIM ) 

BRENT SMALLING, an individual and as ) 

attorney at law; DAVID NOTTINGHAM, ) 

doing business as Home Finders of ) 

Lawton, Oklahoma, individually and as ) 

a partnership; JOHN DOES, individually ) 

and in their official capacities, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-6126 

(D.C. No. 88-1495-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* 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: 89-6126 Document: 01019959065 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 1 
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging defendants, a state court judge, an assistant district 

and two private individuals, conspired to violate 

constitutionally protected rights to due process and 

attorney, 

plaintiff's 

equal protection. Plaintiff asserted defendants conspired to have 

plaintiff unlawfully incarcerated by filing false charges against 

plaintiff and seeking the revocation of a prior suspended sentence 

imposed against plaintiff, which had expired, based upon those 

false charges. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all 

defendants. Plaintiff appeals. 

As an initial argument, plaintiff asserts the district court 

erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment without 

conducting a hearing on that motion. We find no such error. See 

Geear v. Boulder Community Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th 

Cir.)(formal evidentiary hearing, with oral argument, is not 

required on summary judgment motion: rather, parties' right to be 

heard may be fulfilled by the court's review of the briefs and 

supporting affidavits and materials submitted to the trial court), 

cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 312 (1988). Further, plaintiff's 

argument that the district court erred in allowing the Oklahoma 

attorney general's office to represent the state court judge and 

the assistant district attorney is unpersuasive. 

This court will review a district court's decision on a 

motion for summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ewing v. Amoco Oil 

Co., 823 F.2d 1432, 1437 (10th Cir. 1987). Summary judgment is 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-6126 Document: 01019959065 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 2 
appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

Although plaintiff asserted§ 1983 claims against the state 

court judge and the assistant district attorney in both their 

o fficial and individual capacities, the district court addressed 

only the individual capacity causes of action. Nonetheless, 

summary judgment was appropriate as to the official capacity 

claims, which were barred by eleventh amendment sovereign 

immunity. See,~, Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1525-26 

(10th Cir. 1988). 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

defendant Smalling, ruling that, because the acts which plaintiff 

challenged occurred prior to 1986, plaintiff's§ 1983 claim, filed 

August 29, 1988, was time-barred under Oklahoma's two-year statute 

of limitations period for commencing§ 1983 actions. See Abbitt 

v. Franklin, 731 F.2d 661, 662 (10th Cir. 1984)(citing Okla. Stat. 

tit. 12, § 95 (1981)). A cause of action for malicious 

prosecution under Oklahoma law, however, does not accrue until 

five elements exist: "the bringing of an action, successful 

termination in favor of plaintiff, lack of probable cause, malice, 

and damages." Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F.2d 1118, 1124 

(10th Cir.)(citing Page v. Rose, 546 P.2d 617 (Okla. 1975) and 

Towne v. Martin, 166 P.2d 98 (Okla. 1945)), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 

856 (1979). Because the state appellate court's decision 

reversing the revocation of plaintiff's suspended sentence was not 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-6126 Document: 01019959065 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 3 
entered until July 23, 1987, plaintiff timely commenced this cause 

of action against defendant Smalling. 

Nonetheless, because plaintiff failed to point to specific 

facts tending to establish a conspiracy between defendant Smalling 

and the state actors, as required to establish§ 1983 liability on 

the part of a private individual, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 

398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970}; Sooner Prods. Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 

510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983), summary judgment in favor of defendant 

Smalling was appropriate. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 

U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986). See generally Griess v. Colorado, 841 

F.2d 1042, 1047 (10th Cir. 1988}(appellate court may affirm 

district court's decision based on grounds supported by the record 

but upon which the district court did not rely}. Although 

plaintiff, in response to defendant Smalling's motion for summary 

judgment, submitted excerpts of defendant Smalling's state court 

testimony, which plaintiff characterized as admissions by 

defendant Smalling that he had conspired with the defendant 

assistant district attorney to file false charges against 

plaintiff, review of those excerpts in light of a more complete 

transcript of defendant Smalling's testimony, as supplied by 

defendant Smalling in support of his summary judgment motion, 

indicates plaintiff's characterization was inaccurate. 

After careful consideration of the record on appeal, we 

AFFIRM the district court's decision granting defendants summary 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-6126 Document: 01019959065 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 4 
judgment on plaintiff's remaining - claims for substantially the 

reasons stated in the district court's order of March 10, 1989. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

5 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 89-6126 Document: 01019959065 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 5