Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01918/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01918-0/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 S,t.ataa Court of Appeals l"enih Circuit 

JACK E. FLEMING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WARREN 0. MARTIN; SANDRA ROTHENBERG; 

CONNIE L. PETERSON; KIM B. CHILDS; 

FRANK VISCIANO; PAULE. VRANESIC, II; 

LAW FIRM OF COOPER & KELLEY; HOME 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

MAR O ~-l~Q9 

~ ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) No. 88-1918 

) (D.C. No. 88-F-489) 

) (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 

assist 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 

*Th i s 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: 88-1918 Document: 010110024553 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 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 commenced by plaintiff in Colorado 

state court. Plaintiff commenced the state court action, alleging 

legal malpractice, against defendants Visciano and Vranesic, 

attorneys who had represented plaintiff in an earlier, 

unsuccessful federal court action. Defendant Childs represented 

defendants Visciano and Vranesic in the state legal malpractice 

action. Defendants Martin and Peterson were the state court 

judges presiding over the state court proceeding. Defendant 

Rothenberg, also a state court judge, signed one order concerning 

plaintiff's state court action on behalf of defendant Martin. 

In his federal complaint, plaintiff asserted eight§ 1983 

claims: 1) defendants violated plaintiff's right to due process 

through actions resulting in the issuance of a protective order 

prohibiting plaintiff from being accompanied during depositions by 

an attorney who had not entered an appearance in the state action, 

but who was acting as an "advisor" to plaintiff; 2) defendant 

Martin violated plaintiff's right to due process by granting 

defendants' motion for attorney's fees without conducting a 

hearing; 3) defendants, acting in concert, violated plaintiff's 

right to due process; 4) defendants conspired to deny plaintiff 

access to the courts through defendants' conduct resulting in the 

order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; 5) 

defendant Martin was grossly negligent in issuing the protective 

order, failing to hold a hearing on the motion for attorney's 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1918 Document: 010110024553 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 2 
fees, and granting defendants' motion for summary judgment; 6) 

defendant Martin denied plaintiff equal protection of the laws by 

issuing rulings contrary to law; 7) defendant Martin abused 

judicial process by ruling against plaintiff; and 8) defendant 

Peterson 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). As relief, plaintiff sought 

injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's § 1983 claims 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which 

the district court denied. Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his 

§ 1983 claims. 

A federal district court does not have authority to review 

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

is in the form of 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 

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

matter jurisdiction. 

Defendants Martin, Rothenberg, and Peterson 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. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1918 Document: 010110024553 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 3 
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, 

~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, --;f64 

(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 in favor of all defendants is justified. 

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: 88-1918 Document: 010110024553 Date Filed: 03/08/1989 Page: 4