Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01922/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01922-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

.FILED 

United STt.at.es Co!,Jrt of Appeals enth Circuit 

JACK E. FLEMING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SANDRA ROTHENBERG; KIM B. CHILDS; 

DAVID KOFOED; SCOTT LARSON; LAW FIRM 

OF COOPER & KELLEY; AMERICAN HOME 

ASSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

MAR O 71989 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 88-1922 

) (D.C. No. 88-F-490) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assi st the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1922 Document: 010110024524 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983, 

alleging defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights 

during the course of an action plaintiff commenced in state court. 

Plaintiff commenced a legal malpractice action in Colorado state 

court against defendants Kofoed and Larson. Defendant Childs 

represented defendants Kofoed and Larson in the legal malpractice 

action. Defendant Rothenberg, the judge before whom the state 

court action was 

directed verdict 

judgment. 

proceeding, 

and granted 

denied plaintiff's 

defendants' motion 

motion for a 

for summary 

In his federal complaint, plaintiff asserted seven§ 1983 

claims: (1) defendant Rothenberg denied plaintiff due process by 

denying plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict and granting 

defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) defendants conspired 

to deny plaintiff due process; (3) defendants denied plaintiff his 

first amendment right of access to the courts; (4) defendant 

Rothenberg was grossly negligent in granting summary judgment in 

favor of the state court defendants; (5) defendant Rothenberg 

denied plaintiff equal protection of the laws by ruling against 

plaintiff; (6) defendant Rothenberg abused judicial process by 

ruling against plaintiff; and (7) defendant Rothenberg violated 

plaintiff's constitutional rights by refusing to rule on 

plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to 

Colo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Plaintiff sought declaratory and 

injunctive relief and damages. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1922 Document: 010110024524 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 2 
·" The district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), 

dismissed plaintiff's§ 1983 claims for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which 

the district court denied. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of the 

§ 1983 claims. 

A federal district court does not have authority to review a 

state court decision where, as in this action, the relief sought 

is by nature appellate review. Anderson v. Colorado, 793 F.2d 

262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 

1436 (10th Cir. 1986); see District of Columbia Court of Appeals 

v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The district court properly 

dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 claims for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

Defendants moved for sanctions on appeal. Plaintiff has had 

an opportunity to respond to this request. 

Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on ... litigants ... in order to regulate 

their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter 

frivolous filings. See,~, Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 ... (1980); Link v. Wabash 

R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 ... (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 

99 U.S. (9 Otto) 607 ... (1878). In addition, 

Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 u.s.c. § 1912 provide that a 

court of appeals may award just damages and single or 

double costs if the court "determine[s] that an appeal 

is frivolous" or brought for purposes of delay. This 

court has imposed attorney's fees and double costs for 

the taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, 

~-=-9 .... =._1 United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, ~4 

(10th Cir. 1980). 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1986); 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 893, 894-95 (10th Cir. 1986). 

In light of plaintiff's legally frivolous appeal, an award of 

damages and double costs is justified. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1922 Document: 010110024524 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the 

district court to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded 

for taking a legally frivolous appeal. The district court may 

look to the principles that have evolved in the interpretation of 

Rule 11 in assessing the amount of the sanction awarded pursuant 

to Rule 38 and§ 1912. See Atkinson v. O'Neill, F.2d , 

No. 88-1132, slip op. at 4-5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989); 

Mullen v. Household Bank-Federal Sav. Bank, F.2d 

No. 87-1335, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1922 Document: 010110024524 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 4