Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03372/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03372-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 25, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

ROSEMARY DENISE PRICE, United 

States of America, ex rel.; 

DAVID MARTIN PRICE, United 

States of America, ex rel., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

HONORABLE KAY MCFARLAND, 

in her individual and official capacity 

as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 

of Kansas; HOWARD J. SCHWARTZ, 

in his individual and official capacity 

as Administrative Assistant to The 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 

Kansas; HONORABLE MARLA J. 

L UCKERT, in her individual and 

official capacity as a Supreme Court 

Judge in the Supreme Court of Kansas; 

HONORABLE GARY W. RULON, in 

his individual and official capacity as 

Chief Administrative Judge of the 

Kansas Appellate Court; 

HONORABLE G. JOSEPH PIERRON, 

JR., in his individual and official 

capacity as an Appellate Court Judge 

in the Kansas Appellate Courts; 

HONORABLE HENRY W. GREEN, 

JR .. in his individual and official 

capacity as an Appellate Court Judge 

in the Kansas Appellate Courts; 

HONORABLE LEE A. JOHNSON, in 

his individual and official capacity as 

an Appellate Court Judge in the 

Kansas Appellate Courts; CAROL G. 

No. 04-3372 

(D.C. No. 04-CV-4058-RDR) 

(D. Kan.) 

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 1
GREEN, in her individual and official 

capacity as Chief Administrative 

Clerk in the Kansas Appellate Courts; 

HONORABLE RICHARD D. 

ANDERSON, in his individual and 

official capacity as the Administrative 

Judge of the Shawnee County District 

Court_ Topeka, Kansas; HONORABLE 

ADRIAN J. ALLEN, in his individual 

and official capacity as a Pro Tern 

Judge in the Shawnee County District 

Court, Topeka, Kansas; HONORABLE 

FRANK J. YEOMAN, JR., in his 

individual and official capacity as 

Division 08 Judge in the Shawnee 

County District Court, Topeka, 

Kansas; HONORABLE WILLIAM F. 

LYLE, JR., in his individual and 

official capacity as a Pro Tern Judge 

on the Shawnee County District Court, 

Topeka. Kansas; ANGELA M. 

CALLAHAN, in her individual and 

official capacity as Adoption Clerk, 

Shawnee County District Court, 

Topeka, Kansas; NANCY J. 

ESCALANTE, in her individual and 

official capacity as Administrative 

Clerk in the Shawnee County 

District Court, Topeka, Kansas; KAY 

FALLEY, in her individual and 

official capacity as Chief 

Administrative Clerk in the Shawnee 

County District Court. Topeka, 

Kansas: AUSTIN K. VINCENT, in his 

individual and official capacity 

as an Adoption Attorney in Topeka, 

Kansas; BRUCE D. WOOLPERT, in 

his individual and official capacity as 

an adoption attorney in Topeka, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 2
Kansas; EDWARD L. BAILEY, in 

his individual and official capacity as 

outside appointed council for the City 

of Topeka, Kansas; ROBERT D. 

HECHT, in his individual and official 

capacity as District Attorney of 

Shawnee County, Topeka, Kansas; 

KAREN C. WITTMAN, in her 

individual and official capacity as 

Assistant District Attorney of Shawnee 

County, Topeka, Kansas; JOHN J. 

KNOLL, in his individual and official 

capacity as Assistant City Attorney of 

Topeka, Kansas; STEVE SMITH, in 

his individual and official capacity as 

Senior Registered Agent to the 

F.B.L Topeka, Kansas; KEVIN 

ST AFFORD, in his individual 

and official capacity as Senior 

Registered Agent to the F .B .I., Kansas 

City, Missouri; RANDY 

HENDERSHOT, in his individual and 

official capacity as Senior Registered 

Agent, U.S. Attorneys' Office, Topeka, 

Kansas; ERIC MELGREN, in his 

individual and official capacity as an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Topeka, 

Kansas; DA YID D. PLINSKY, in his 

individual and official capacity as an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Topeka, 

Kansas; PHIL KLINE, in his 

individual and official capacity as the 

Attorney General of the State of 

Kansas; STEVE PHILLIPS, in his 

individual and official capacity as the 

Assistant Attorney General of the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 3
State of Kansas; RON PATTERSON, 

in his individual and official capacity 

as a Kansas State Highway Patrolman, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT. 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs-appellants Rosemary Denise Price and David Martin Price appeal 

from the order and the related judgment entered by the district court dismissing 

their complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l), 12(b)(6), and 12(c). Our 

jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we have determined that this 

appeal is frivolous, we deny plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis, 

and we dismiss this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of l 0th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 4
As summarized by the district court, 

Plaintiffs ... are proceeding pro se. Generally, their 110-page 

complaint asserts that they have spoken out regarding numerous 

matters of public interest in Topeka, Kansas including law 

enforcement issues, misappropriation of funds, the bonding out of 

persons charged with crimes in Shawnee County, and the election of 

judges. They further assert that defendants have retaliated against 

them and others associated with them because of their protected 

speech. This retaliation has allegedly occurred in the prosecution of 

a traffic charge ... against plaintiff David Price, an adoption case 

involving a baby fathered by David Price, a petition for the 

termination of parental rights of David Price, and in other actions 

involving persons associated with plaintiffs. The complaint also 

asserts that certain defendants failed to investigate plaintiffs' claims 

of illegal and unethical conduct. 

Plaintiffs list a multitude of federal statutes in their complaint: 

4 2 U.S. C. § § 1 9 8 1 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 ( 2), 1 9 8 5 ( 3), 1 9 8 6 and 1 9 8 8; 1 8 

U.S.C. §§ 1512-1515, 1961-1968; 28 U.S.C. § 1343; 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730; and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Plaintiffs also list a 

number of constitutional provisions, Kansas statutory sections, 

canons of judicial conduct, state court rules and uniform statutes. 

R., Vol. I, Doc. 105 at 2-3 (footnote omitted). 

In a very thorough and well-reasoned thirty-eight page order, the district 

court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims based on twenty separate rulings. 

Specifically, the court concluded that: 

1. Plaintiffs' motion to recuse ''all Kansas, Missouri and Tenth 

Circuit judges, justices and magistrates ... from this case" was 

without merit. Doc. 105 at 5. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 5
2. Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief relating to the state-court 

child custody and adoption cases and other state court cases were 

jurisdictionally barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 Doc. 105 at 

8-9. 

3. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state a 

claim under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 

U.S.C. § 3730(b). Doc. 105 at 10. 

4. "Plaintiffs cannot bring a civil action to recover upon the alleged 

violation of criminal statutes or initiate criminal enforcement actions 

as a private citizen." Id. 

5. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state a 

claim under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 

Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. Doc. 105 at 11-13. 

6. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state 

claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, or 1986. Doc. 105 at 13-14. 

7. "Plaintiffs have no cause of action directly under the United 

States Constitution against state and local officials." Id. at 15. 

8. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state a 

claim for injunctive relief with regard to alleged future harms. Id. at 

16. 

9. Plaintiffs' claims against the named state prosecutors were either 

barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity, id. at 18-19, 27, or 

failed to state a claim because "[t]here is no constitutional or 

statutory right to have an investigation undertaken by a government 

official or agency," and "[e]ven if there was such a right, defendants 

... would be entitled to qualified immunity from liability," id. at 19-

20. 

See Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,482 (1983); 

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 6
I 0. Plaintiffs' claims against the named state court judges were 

either barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, id. at 20-23, or 

failed to state a claim because "there is no right to have an 

investigation performed or, if there was, the defendant judges were 

entitled to qualified immunity,'' id. at 23. 

11. "[P]laintiffs do not have standing to object to a disciplinary 

complaint made against their [former] attorney." Id. at 24. 

12. "Plaintiffs allege no facts in their complaint which state a claim 

that they were denied meaningful access to the courts by reason of 

any action by the defendant judges." Id. 

13. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state 

a claim against the named state-court clerks. Id. at 25-27. 

14. "[A]ny alleged violation of state open meetings or open records 

laws does not state a claim for the violation of federal law." Id. at 

27. 

15. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for malicious prosecution 

against defendant Patterson. Id. at 27-28. 

16. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state 

claims against the named private attorneys. Id. at 28-31. 

I 7. Plaintiffs failed to state claims against the named attorneys from 

the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas and the 

named agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation because 

"there is no constitutional right to have government officials 

investigate claims or reports of wrongdoing and, even if there were 

such a right, defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity." 

Id. at 31-32. 

18. Plaintiffs' claim against defendant Knoll for malicious 

prosecution was barred by the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. 

Id. at 34. 

19. The allegations in plaintiffs' complaint were insufficient to state 

a claim against defendant Plinsky. Id. at 34-36. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 7
20. Having dismissed all of plaintiffs' federal claims, there was "no 

good reason" to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' 

state-law claims. Id. at 3 7. 

Plaintiffs have submitted an application to this court for leave to proceed in 

this appeal in forma pauperis. In order to be granted leave to proceed on appeal 

in forma pauperis, plaintiffs must show the existence of reasoned, nonfrivolous 

arguments on the law and the facts in support of reversing the district court's 

dismissal of their action. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 93 7 F .2d 502, 505 

(10th Cir. 1991 ). In addition, this court must dismiss an in forma pauperis appeal 

if it determines that the appeal is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see 

also Stafford v. United States, 208 F .3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (I 0th Cir. 2000) ("[W]hen 

an appeal is found frivolous in connection with a procedural review [by this 

court] of the appellant's right to proceed in form a pa up eris ... , dismissal is 

mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)."). An appeal is frivolous if"it lacks 

an arguable basis in either law or fact." Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 

1222 (10th Cir. 2002). 

In their opening and reply briefs, plaintiffs have failed to set forth any 

specific, nonconclusory arguments explaining why the district court's rulings 

were erroneous. For example, instead of addressing the district court's specific 

rulings with respect to the immunity and the recusal issues, plaintiffs make 

-8-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 8
conclusory statements such as the following throughout their opening and reply 

briefs: 

After submitting a request for recusal of the 10th Circuit District 

Court Judges, as well as, Patrick Fisher of the 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeals, the continued pattern of practice continues up the ranks as 

judges ignore requests for recusal and respond to the matters before 

them, granting all of the Defendants immunity in this matter, causing, 

yet, more appearance of conspiring to covering up the crimes of the 

lower Courts, as well as, our elected officials. 

Aplt. Opening Br. at 1. Similarly, plaintiffs have failed to explain the specific 

factual background of each of their claims for relief. Instead, plaintiffs make 

sweeping generalizations such as the following to describe their claims, which 

now apparently include the federal judiciary as a putative defendant: 

The Defendants of this action hold and retain governmental 

occupational titles which unconstitutionally grant them protection 

from prosecution for their wrongdoings, i.e., violations of 

Constitutional Rights, violations of Civil Rights, violations of Local, 

State, and Federal Laws, upon the citizens, to include that which was 

done to [plaintiffs] of this action. 

The Appellants enter the following matters for which evidence 

exists in judicial records ... : 

a). Misuse of the Federal District Courts in the Tenth Circuit as a 

racketeering enterprise, as all of the Defendants were granted 

immunity though the records show that crimes, to include violations 

of [plaintiffs'] Constitutional and Civil Rights, have been 

committed .... 

-9-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 9
b ). Misuse of the Federal District Courts in the Tenth Circuit in a 

pattern of obstruction of justice, as Pro Se Litigants are being 

penalized for appearing Pro Se .... 

c). Misuse of the Federal District Courts in the Tenth Circuit in 

subverting civil and constitutional rights and protections. 

The documented judicial misconduct includes, for instance: A 

pattern of documented civil rights and criminal violations by Federal -- District Court in the Tenth Circuit judges .... 

Id. at 1, 9-10. 2 

In this circuit, "[a]rguments inadequately briefed in the opening brief are 

waived." Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998); see 

also Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927 n.10 (10th Cir. 

2 Indeed, even when plaintiffs made an overt attempt to set forth the 

particular facts that support their claims, the facts they relied upon are wholly 

conclusory: 

[Plaintiffs] state that they did not fail to plead the particulars of any 

fraud which might possibly serve as the basis for the Qui Tam; Who: 

the Named Defendants of this action: What: violations of laws and 

Constitutionally protected Rights so as to protect the level beneath 

them, and associated with them, all to defend the Free Federal Money 

allocated to the respective areas of expertise; When: listed 

throughout the assigned case numbers associated with this Appeal; 

Where: in the State of Kansas ... ; and How: by any means as they 

see fit, to include kidnaping, destruction of life, liberty, and the 

pursuit of happiness, and strong arming the citizens to include 

[plaintiffs] to comply with the 'scheme of things' or face the 

consequences. 

Aplt. Reply Br. at 5-6. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 10
2004) (holding that appellant waived its right to appeal the rulings of the district 

court that it did not substantively address in its opening brief); Wilburn v. 

Mid-South Health Dev., Inc., 343 F.3d 1274, 1281 (10th Cir. 2003) ("We ... will 

not consider issues that are raised on appeal but not adequately addressed."); Fed. 

R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ("[A]ppellant's] argument ... must contain ... 

appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities 

and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.'"). Because plaintiffs have 

failed to adequately challenge the rulings of the district court, we conclude that 

this appeal is frivolous. 

Accordingly, we DENY plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and we DISMISS this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

We also DENY the motions to supplement the record that plaintiffs filed in this 

court on January 25, 2005, April 22, 2005, and May I 0, 2005. Finally, we have 

reviewed the motion for clarification that plaintiffs filed in this court on May 23, 

2005. In light of the filing of this order and judgment, we have determined that 

there is no need for any clarification regarding the order that was entered in this 

-11-

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 11
matter on May 13, 2005. We therefore DENY plaintiffs' motion for clarification 

as moot. 

-12-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-3372 Document: 010110642457 Date Filed: 05/25/2005 Page: 12