Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05018/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05018-0/pdf.json

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

---

~ 1 . ·. ~t , • 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Sta1-' · L, :: . . r:n · 'i:'riy,,)1 ch'cuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EUGENE T. FOUST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

MARY ANN JOHNSON FOUST; MARGARET 

ANN JOHNSON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

GINA M. CHOROST; GARY L. GIBSON; ) 

SCOTT SMITH; ORAL ROBERTS; ) 

KRISTEN L. BEST; STATE OF OKLAHOMA) 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN ) 

SERVICES; DETECTIVE CPL. DAN BROWN;) 

TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT N. ) 

"BOB" DICK; FRANK THURMAN; PAUL B. ) 

SMITH; THOMAS CREWSON; RUSSSELL P. ) 

HASS; SHARRON BUBENIK; GAIL HARRIS;) 

BILL BEASLEY; OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC) 

DEFENDER; CLIFFORD D. HOPPER; ) 

RICK CLARKE, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN t 6 1qg I 

ROBERT L. HOECK =-

Clerk 

No. 90-5018 

(D.C. No. 88-C-809 - E ) 

(N.D. Okl a homa) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

* 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: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 1 
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 Eugene T. Foust was convicted by a jury of 

molesting his seven year old step-daughter, Margaret Ann Johnson. 

Acting on his own behalf, and purporting to act on behalf of 

Johnson and his common law wife Mary Ann Johnson-Foust, Foust 

filed an action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 

alleging that defendants, various state officials and agencies and 

employees of Oral Roberts University, had violated Foust, JohnsonFoust and Johnson's civil rights. The complaint centers on events 

surrounding the investigation and prosecution that led to Foust's 

conviction and to his expulsion from Oral Roberts University. 

Foust appeals the district court's grant of defendants' motions to 

dismiss. 

The sufficiency of the complaint is a question of law which 

we review de novo. See Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1190 (10th 

Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 871 (1990). 

The Constitution provides no right to representation by a lay 

person. United States v. Irwin, 561 F.2d 198, 200 (10th Cir. 

1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1012 (1978); United States v. 

Grismore, 546 F.2d 844, 847 (10th Cir. 1976). Moreover, there is 

no indication in the instant case that Johnson-Foust or Johnson 

has authorized Foust to pursue relief on their behalf. We 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 2 
therefore affirm dismissal of all claims that Foust purports to 

pursue on behalf of Johnson-Foust and Johnson. 

Foust's complaint asserts claims against Oklahoma state 

judges Bubenik, Harris, Hass, Beasley, Hopper and Crewson. 

Nothing in Foust's complaint, however, indicates that any of these 

judges ever dealt with Foust outside the scope of their judicial 

capacities or in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

they are immune from suit and the district court properly 

dismissed all claims against them. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 

U.S. 349, 357, 360 (1978). 

Foust's complaint next asserts a 42 u.s.c § 1983 acti on 

against the Office of the Public Defender and against assistant 

public defender Rick Clarke. Foust contends that these defendants 

deprived him of his right to counsel by agreeing to represent him 

despite knowledge of a conflict of interest; namely, that t he 

Office of the Public Defender already was representing the minor 

Johnson in Guardian Ad Litem proceedings. 

We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed 

Foust's complaint against Clarke and the Office of the Public 

Defender. Neither defendant acted under "color of state law" as 

required by§ 1983. See Espinoza v. Rogers, 470 F.2d 1174, 1175 

(10th Cir. 1972) (attorney does not act under color of state l aw 

by accepting employment as a public defender); see also Pol k 

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (public defender does 

not act under color of state law for§ 1983 purposes by performing 

lawyer's traditional functions for criminal defendant). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 3 
Foust's complaint next alleges claims under 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1981, 1983 and 1985(3) against assistant district attorney 

Paul B. Smith, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (ODHS) 

and ODHS social worker Kristen L. Best. The Eleventh Amendment 

to the United States Constitution bars suits against a state and 

its agencies. See Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 

465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). The district court therefore correctly 

dismissed Foust's complaint against the ODHS. 

The district court also correctly dismissed Foust's complaint 

against Smith and Best. As a state prosecutor, Smith enjoys 

absolute immunity from suit for his actions in initiating and 

pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the state's 

case. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-29 (1976). 

Foust's complaint does not allege any actions taken by Smith that 

are not immune under Imbler. Foust's claim against Best, on the 

other hand, essentially alleges that Foust would not have been 

arrested and tried, and Johnson would not have been taken into 

state custody, if Best had conducted a thorough, proper and 

accurate investigation. See IR. 2 at ,r,r 10, 32, 41, 49, 66A, 79. 

In light of Foust's lewd molestation conviction, we disagree. 

After hearing all the relevant evidence, a jury determined beyond 

a reasonable doubt that Foust had molested Johnson. "It 

[therefore] appears beyond doubt that [Foust] can prove no set of 

facts in support of his claim" that Best's investigation somehow 

wrongfully resulted in his incarceration and in Johnson being 

taken into state custody. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 

(1957). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 4 
Faust's complaint next alleges that Gina M. Chorost, Gary L. 

Gibson, Scott Smith, Paul B. Smith, Kristen L. Best, Dan Brown , 

the Tulsa Police Department and the Office of the Public Defender 

conspired to deprive Foust of his constitutional rights in 

violation of 42 u.s.c. § 1985(3). See I R. 2 at ,r,r 49, 60, 63, 

94F, 99, & Brief of Appellant at 27. Faust's complaint, however, 

does not allege any racial or class based invidiously 

discriminatory animus behind the defendants' actions. 1 Absent 

such an allegation, Faust's claim must fail. See Griffin v. 

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 

485, 489 (10th Cir. 1977). For similar reasons, the district 

court properly dismissed Faust's remaining 42 U.S.C. § 1981 

claims; because Foust fails to allege anything akin to racial 

discrimination, he has no claim for relief under§ 1981. See 

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273, 285-

96 (1976); Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, 593 F.2d 968, 970-71 

(10th Cir. 1979). 

Faust's complaint next alleges that Tulsa police department 

chief of police Robert N. "Bob" Dick, and Tulsa police department 

detective Dan Brown, acting in their official capacities, v i olated 

Faust's constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Specifically, Foust alleges that the City of Tulsa violated his 

constitutional right to privacy when Tulsa police officers, acting 

pursuant to a policy authorized by Oklahoma law and adopted by 

Dick, placed Johnson in protective custody. We disagree. A l ocal 

government only incurs§ 1983 liability when execution of the 

1 Foust, Johnson-Foust and Johnson are all caucasians. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 5 
government's unconstitutional policy causes a constitutional 

violation. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 

436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). A policy permitting police officers to 

take into custody a child whose surroundings endanger the child's 

welfare is not unconstitutional. We therefore affirm the district 

court's dismissal of Foust's § 1983 claim against Dick. 

We also affirm the district court's dismissal of Foust's 

offical capacity claim against Brown. Only actions by final 

policy makers may give rise to municipal liability under § 1983. 

See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988) 

(plurality opinion); Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 

483-84 (1986) (plurality opinion); Collins v. City of San Diego, 

841 F.2d 337, 341 (9th Cir. 1988) (police sergeant is not 

policymaker for§ 1983 municipal liability purposes). Nothing in 

Foust's complaint suggests that Brown, a detective in the Tulsa 

police department, possessed such authority. 

Foust's complaint next alleges that unnamed Tulsa police 

officers violated his constitutional right to privacy by placing 

Johnson in protective custody without conducting a proper 

investigation. We affirm the district court's dismissal of this 

claim. Foust's own complaint demonstrates that police had ample 

justification for placing Johnson in protective custody. IR. 2 

at ,r,r 2 9, 32. We similarly affirm dismissal of Foust' s claim 

that detective Dan Brown arrested Foust without probable cause. 

It appears that the issue of probable cause was litigated in 

Foust's state court criminal proceeding. IR. 2 at 14, 24, 25, 

27. The doctrine of issue preclusion bars Foust from relitigating 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 6 
the probable cause issue. See Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 

473 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1101 (1986). Thus, 

Foust is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue. 

Moreover, even if the issue of probable cause was not fully and 

fairly litigated, Foust's conviction establishes a presumption 

that there was probable cause for the arrest. See James v. 

Southwestern Ins. Co., 354 P.2d 408, 412 (Okla. 1960); Cameron v. 

Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 

1016 (1987). 

Foust next contends that Oral Roberts University (ORU) 

employees Gina M. Chorost, Gary L. Gibson, Scott Smith and Oral 

Roberts violated Foust's civil rights by reporting suspected child 

abuse and by expelling Foust from ORU. We also affirm the 

district court's dismissal of this § 1983 claim. When ORU 

expelled Foust, it acted as a private university. When these 

defendants reported suspected child abuse, they acted as private 

citizens. Accordingly, there is a total lack of state action. 

See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837-43 (1982) (§ 1983 

action failed to state a claim for relief because actions of 

private school, though it received substantial state funding, did 

not constitute state action). 

Finally, Foust argues that the district court erred when it 

refused to allow an amendment to his complaint to substitute 

several individual social workers as defendants in place of t he 

Oklahoma Department of Social Services. See Brief of Appellant at 

43-44. The record before us on appeal contains no indication that 

Foust ever filed such a motion. If, however, Foust did make such 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 7 
a motion, we find no indication that the district court abused i ts 

discretion in refusing to allow amendment. See Stichting 

Mayflower Recreational Fonds v. Newpark Resources, Inc., 917 F.2d 

1239, (10th Cir. 1990) (district court's decision to deny 

leave to amend a complaint reviewed for abuse of discretion). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of 

Foust's complaint against all defendants. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-8-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5018 Document: 010110076396 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 8