Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03010/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03010-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILLLJ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALElJnited St~h~!~ Appeal, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RANDALL WILLIAM MURPHY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

WILLIAM PETTIJOHN; TIM DENNIS; DOUGLAS ) 

FARMER; ED SCHESSLEMEN; JOHN DOE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 11 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 91-3379 

& 

92-3010 

(D.C. No. 90-3146-S ) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before BALDOCK and SETH, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Lewis 

District Court for 

designation. 

T. Babcock, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are 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 f or purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case , r e s judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3010 Document: 010110152118 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 1 
Plaintiff-appellant Randall W. Murphy appeals from the 

district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims in favor 

of all defendants and denial of his petition for rehearing a nd 

reconsideration. Additionally, Mr. Murphy appeals from the 

district court's denial of his application for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal . Because we granted Mr. Murphy's motion 

to this court to proceed in forma pauperis, that issue is now 

moot. 

Appearing prose, Mr. Murphy filed a civil rights complaint 

alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986 and his 

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The crux of his 

complaint is that defendants conspired to and did prepare a false 

affidavit used to obtain search warrants. The search warrants 

were used to obtain incriminating evidence against Mr. Murphy, who 

was convicted in Kansas state court on various drug charges. 

The United States District Court for Kansas determined that 

Mr. Murphy had raised the issue of the validity of the affidavit 

in a suppression hearing during his state court proceeding, and 

that the state court found that the warrant was validly issued. 

An appeal was taken to the Kansas Court of Appeals which 

considered the trial court 's refusal to suppress the evidence 

seized under the 11 various search warrants. 11 The Court of Appeals 

held that the "trial court's findings on defendants' motion to 

suppress the evidence are supported by competent evidence . 11 

Mr. Murphy's state court conviction was thus affirmed. 

The United States District Court in this action held that, 

based on Allen v. Mccurry. 449 U.S. 90 (1980), Mr . Murphy was 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3010 Document: 010110152118 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 2 
precluded by collateral estoppel from relitigating the validity of 

the search warrant in this subsequent civil rights claim. It 

therefore granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and 

dismissed the case . It also denied Mr. Murphy's petition for 

rehearing or reconsideration. Mr. Murphy had a "full and fair" 

opportunity to litigate the issues in the state court proceedings 

and to take an appeal. The doctrine of collateral estoppel 

applies. For substantially the same reasons as the district court 

gave, we hold that Mr. Murphy's claims are barred by collateral 

estoppel. See Allen v. Mccurry. 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (state law 

applies); Blinder. Robinson & Co. v. United States SEC, 565 

F. Supp. 74 (D. Colo. 1983), aff'd, 748 F.2d 1415 (10th Cir. 

1984) ; Spence v. Latting. 512 F . 2d 93 (10th Cir. 1975). As to the 

application of Kansas law and mutuality, see American Horne 

Assurance Co. v . Pacific Indem. Co., 672 F. Supp. 495, 498 

(D. Kan. 19 8 7 ) ; Crutsinger v. Hess, 408 F . Supp. 548, 551-55 

(D. Kan. 1976). 

Mr. Murphy also contends that the district court erred by 

denying his motion to amend his complaint, conducting a pretrial 

conference by telephone, failing to timely rule on certain of his 

pleadings, and the court's refusal to grant rehearing. 

these contentions to be without merit. 

3 

We find 

Appellate Case: 92-3010 Document: 010110152118 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3010 Document: 010110152118 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 4