Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02742/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02742-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals T~•nth r~i .. ('i: · t 

APR 141989 

ROBERT L. HO~CKER 

Clerk 

THOMAS J. ALISANKUS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v . ) 

) 

RONALD L. KETCHUM, individually and as ) 

Sheriff of Natrona County, Wyoming, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 87-2742 

(D.C. No. 87-1029) 

( D. Wyo.) 

Before SEYMOUR, BARRETT, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

This appeal is taken from a summary judgment order entered in 

favor of the defendant, Ronald Ketchum, on the plaintiff's action 

alleging deprivation of his property and liberty interests without 

* 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: 87-2742 Document: 010110035127 Date Filed: 04/14/1989 Page: 1 
due process and raising three pendent state law claims. The 

district court determined the plaintiff, Thomas Alisankus, did not 

possess a property interest in his employment because he was an 

appointee of the sheriff, not an employee, whom the county sheriff 

had unlimited discretion to appoint or discharge, and that Mr. 

Alisankus failed to show a deprivation of liberty. The district 

court also granted summary judgment on Mr. Alisankus' breach of 

contract claim, dismissed his fraud claim, and declined to 

exercise jurisdiction over the tortious interference of contract 

claim. 

We are convinced that the district court correctly concluded 

the plaintiff did not possess a constitutionally protected 

property interest. See Dickeson v. Quarberg, 844 F.2d 1435, 

1438-39 (10th Cir. 1988). We also agree that the plaintiff failed 

to show that Sheriff Ketchum publicized or made public "outside 

the state government" his reasons for not appointing Mr. 

Alisankus, Asbill v. Housing Auth. of Choctaw Nation, 726 F.2d 

1499, 1503 (10th Cir. 1984), and therefore did not establish a 

material issue of fact for the jury as to his liberty claim. 

Regarding Mr. Alisankus' contract claim, the district court 

determined that the plaintiff did not state any facts which would 

constitute consideration for the contract allegedly created by a 

certain letter from Sheriff Ketchum to department personnel, and 

failed to present a material issue of fact that he was the 

intended beneficiary of an alleged oral agreement between Sheriff 

Barrett and Sheriff Ketchum. The Supreme Court has stated that, 

under the standards for summary judgment set forth in 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-2742 Document: 010110035127 Date Filed: 04/14/1989 Page: 2 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), a court should consider a party's burden of 

proof at trial in determining whether the party has made a 

sufficient showing to oppose a summary judgment motion. Celotex 

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). In light of Mr. 

Alisankus' burden of proof, we agree with the district court that 

he has failed to present evidence that establishes a genuine issue 

of material fact on any of his contract theories. See Miller v. 

Miller, 664 P.2d 39, 40 (Wyo. 1983). Likewise, the district 

court's dismissal of the fraud claim was correct because the 

plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that he in any way 

relied to his detriment on any promise of Sheriff Ketchum, thereby 

failing to create an issue for the jury. See Duffy v. Brown, 708 

P.2d 433, 437 (Wyo. 1985). 

We have considered all of the plaintiff's arguments on appeal 

and are not persuaded that the district court improperly entered 

summary judgment in favor the Mr. Ketchum. The order of the 

United States District Court for the District of Wyoming is 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-2742 Document: 010110035127 Date Filed: 04/14/1989 Page: 3