Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05250/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05250-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ADEMOLA MICHAEL OGUNLEYE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

MAY 2 8 f§gy 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; ) 

No. 90-5250 

(D.C. No. 87-C-171-E) 

( N . D . Okla • ) 

TULSA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2; ) 

HON. J.D. DALTON, Tulsa ) 

District Court Judge; BOB ) 

DICK, Police Chief; B. LOUD, ) 

Police Officer; H.L. ) 

BRAUER, Police Officer; ) 

TULSA POLICE DEPARTMENT; ) 

DAVID MOSS, Tulsa District ) 

Attorney; and DONNA PRIORE, ) 

Assistant Tulsa District ) 

Attorney, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

* 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: 90-5250 Document: 010110116659 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Ademola Michael Ogunleye was arrested on June 1, 

1986 and subsequently charged and convicted of a felony offense, 

larceny of merchandise from a retailer, in Tulsa County District 

Court before the Honorable Judge Jay Dalton. Plaintiff filed a 

claim under 42 u.s.c. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2) and (3), alleging the 

arresting police officers, the chief of police, the district attorney, plaintiff's trial counsel, and the trial judge conspired 

to obtain plaintiff's conviction. Plaintiff now appeals from the 

district court's dismissal of the State of Oklahoma, Tulsa 

Judicial District 2, Honorable J.D. Dalton, Tulsa District Court 

Judge, Bob Dick, Police Chief, the Tulsa Police Department, David 

Moss, District Attorney for the County of Tulsa, and Donna Priore, 

Assistant District Attorney for the County of Tulsa as defendants 

in this action. Plaintiff also appeals from the court's grant of 

summary judgment in favor of B. Loud, Police Officer, and H.L. 

Brauer, Police Officer. We affirm. 

Plaintiff first contends the district court failed to give de 

novo consideration to his objections to the Magistrate's Report 

and Recommendation. The record, however, reveals the court did 

give proper consideration to plaintiff's objections. In an order 

dated May 6, 1988, the court stated: 

Upon consideration of the arguments advanced by 

plaintiff and the legal authorities presented the 

Court declines to vacate its order affirming the 

Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. The Court 

has carefully considered plaintiff's objections 

even though late-coming and concludes that the 

Magistrate was correct in his recommendations. 

The district court properly dismissed defendant Dick from 

this action. Plaintiff failed to make any allegations regarding 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5250 Document: 010110116659 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 2 
Dick's personal involvement in this case. Dick therefore cannot 

be liable under section 1983 or 1985. See Meade Y.!.. Grubbs, 841 

F.2d 1512, 1527-28 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated by the 

search and impoundment of his automobile following his arrest. 

The affidavits presented to the court indicate plaintiff's vehicle 

was impounded and its contents inventoried in accordance with 

standard Tulsa Police Department practices. The Supreme Court has 

upheld the validity of routine inventory searches of automobiles 

lawfully impounded by the police. See South Dakota Y.!.. Opperman, 

428 U.S. 364, 369-73 (1976). Plaintiff presented no evidence 

indicating this warrantless search and seizure was unreasonable 

and violated his fourth amendment rights. The record reveals the 

impoundment and search of plaintiff's automobile was conducted in 

a reasonable manner in an effort to safeguard plaintiff's 

property. 

Plaintiff failed to present a claim under section 1983 for 

retaliation for his exercise of his fifth amendment rights. 

Plaintiff presented no evidence establishing a causal link between 

the actions of defendants Loud and Brauer and plaintiff's exercise 

of his constitutional rights. See Givhan Y.!.. Western Line Consol. 

School Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 416-17 (1979). Nor has plaintiff 

proven the officers were responsible for his being charged with 

knowing possession of a fictitious license or his bond being set 

at $20,000. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5250 Document: 010110116659 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 3 
4 

The district court properly dismissed defendant Dalton from 

this action. Judges have historically been afforded absolute immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction. See 

Stump Y..!.. SparJanan, 435 U.S. 349, 359-64 (1985); Van Sickle Y..!.. 

Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1435-36 (10th Cir. 1986). The district 

court properly concluded Judge Dalton's acts about which plaintiff 

complains were entirely within the scope of his judicial office 

while conducting plaintiff's criminal trial. 

Defendants Moss and Priore were also properly dismissed from 

this action. Plaintiff failed to make any allegations regarding 

Moss's personal involvement in this case. Moss therefore cannot 

be liable under section 1983 or 1985. See Meade Y..!.. Grubbs, 841 

F.2d at 1527-28. Priore enjoys prosecutorial immunity from suit 

for actions within the scope of her prosecutorial duties, including those actions about which plaintiff complains. See Imbler Y..!.. 

Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424-25 (1976). 

Plaintiff's other arguments are also without merit. We 

AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons given by the district 

court. All pending motions are denied. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5250 Document: 010110116659 Date Filed: 05/28/1991 Page: 4