Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01206/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01206-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

DONALD 0. LANSDOWN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ALBERT · G. SINN; CINDY JOHNSON, ) 

) 

D~fendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

JAN 2 71989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk •. 

No. 88-1206 

(D.C. No. C87-392B) 

( D. Wyo.) 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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 

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the district couit 

granting defendants' motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff commenced this action in district court pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, he alleged that defendant 

. 

Sinn, a state public defender who represented him on charges of 

forgery, conspired with state officials, f·ai_led . to advance all 

colorable clalms and defenses-, fail~d to investigate his case and 

to contact witnesses, forced him to en~er an involuntary guilty 

Appellate Case: 88-1206 Document: 01019962418 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 1 
plea, and misrepresented the terms of his piea bargain. Plaintiff 

alleged that defendant Johnson, the probation officer who 

conducted his presentence investigation, included false·i 

misleading, and inaccurate information as well as nonexistent 

prior convictions in the report. 

judgment and money damages. 

He requested .a declaratory 

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to ~tate a claim and 

because they were entitled to absolute illlf!lunity. The district 

court granted defendants' motion on the grounds that defendants 

were absolutely immune. 

This court has held that probation officers assist the court 

in a critical role by conducting presentence investigation reports 

under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. Thus, we have held that a probation 

officer is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages for 

actions taken in this role. See Tripati v. United States 

Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 784 F.2d 345, 348 (10th Cir. 

1986), cert. deni~d, 108 S. Ct. 755 (1988). 

The Supreme Court has held that a public defender 

representing an indigent def~ndant is not acting under color · of 

state law for the purposes of suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Polk 

County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). However, such action 

would be found if defendant Sinn had "corruptly conspire[d]'' with 

a state actor as plaintiff alleged here. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 

U.S. 24, 29 (1980). Further, if he had "conspired with state 

officials to deprive the § 1983 plaintiff of federal 

constitutional rights," he would not be entitled to an absolute 

immunity defense. Tower v. Glover, _467 U.S. 914, 916 (1984). See 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1206 Document: 01019962418 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 2 
also Norton v. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375, 1380 ·(10th Cir. _1980); 

Shaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 

U.S. 984 (1981) • 

. However, ''mere conclusory allegations with no supporting 

factual averments are insufficient" to show a conspiracy. Sooner 

Prods. Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983). Here, 

plaintiff merely alleged that defendant · Sinh "acted in a 

conspiratorial manner." Plaintiff failed to allege any overt act 

of conspiracy, failed to support his allegation with specific 

facts, and failed to allege a nexus between Sinn and a state actor 

sufficient to support a§ 1983 claim of conspiracy to deprive 

plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Shaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 

1259. 

Defendant also requested a declaratory judgment that his 

rights had been violated. The Declaratory Judgment Act "is an 

enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than 

an absolute right upon the litigant." Public Serv. Comm'n v. 

Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241 (1952). Therefore, we review the 

court's exercise of that discretion under an abuse of discretion 

standard. Declaratory judgment is available only in "a case of 

actual controversy." 28 u.s.c. § 2201. Based on the above 

discussion, no actual controversy exists here. Therefore, 

declaratory judgment is not available. We find no abuse in the 

district court's decision not to enter a _declaratory judgment. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1206 Document: 01019962418 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED . FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1206 Document: 01019962418 Date Filed: 01/27/1989 Page: 4