Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02228/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02228-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

u ~iirtd Srnrei:. C.ot.rt of Appeab 

Tenth Cir:uit 

AP !~ 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DONALD RAY BISHOP, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

REBECCA WARDLAW, PETER HEBARD, 

FRANK B. ZINN, MARGO LILNDSAY, 

GEORGE L. ZIMMERMAN, JOY LESLIE, 

JOE EDWARDS, ALICE BAXTER, RAY 

BISHOP, PAT BISHOP, KITTY SECREST, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 89-2228 

(District of New Mexico) 

(D.C. No. 85-711-JB) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON, and TACHA, 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 

Donald Ray Bishop, appearing prose, appeals the dismissal of 

his civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 

1985. The action was dismissed by summary judgment as to one 

* 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: 89-2228 Document: 01019971955 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
-group of defendants, and pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) as to 

another group of defendants. 

Mr. Bishop brought this action alleging a massive conspiracy 

by which "[p]laintiff's District Court trial tapes and sentencing 

tapes were edited, altered and deleted prior to appeal. Falsified 

documents were substituted in the duplicate District Court file 

and subsequently entered as the Record Proper, without having been 

obtained from the original District Court File." R. Vol. I at Tab 

29. As a result of the alleged falsifications, Mr. Bishop 

asserted in his complaint that he was "prevented from pursuing an 

appeal and his Due Process Rights were consequently violated." 

And, "as a result of the deprival of Due Process Plaintiff's Equal 

Protection Rights were violated." Id. Mr. Bishop named as the 

alleged conspirators, his mother and father, his uncle and aunt, 

his own lawyer at trial (the public defender), the state district 

court judge who presided over his criminal trial, another district 

judge, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, 

two court reporters, the clerk of the court, and the deputy clerk. 

The complaint in this case was filed five years ago. It was 

preceded by unsuccessful state habeas proceedings in which similar 

allegations were made. The record discloses that since the trial, 

Mr. Bishop's parents, his attorneys, and Mr. Bishop himself have 

at various times been furnished copies of tapes and other records 

of his state court proceedings. Mr. Bishop contends that those 

materials were merely copies and contained false entries or 

omissions and that other records are missing. In all these years, 

however, through and including Mr. Bishop's briefs in this court, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2228 Document: 01019971955 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2 
Mr. Bishop has at no time identified exactly what it was that was 

supposedly altered or omitted, with one exception. In the state 

courts, and now in federal court, Mr. Bishop contends that the 

district judge made the following statement at his sentencing 

hearing, later omitted from the record: "In this court's opinion, 

the, imposition of any sentence upon the defendant would be a 

violation of defendant's constitutional rights." As the district 

court noted, such a statement would have absolutely no effect upon 

Mr. Bishop's rights. Those rights were fully open to examination 

in the state appellate process, and the district court's 

observations could not change the legal analysis one iota. 

Mr. Bishop complains at length that he was not permitted 

adequate discovery in order to develop his contentions. He also 

asserts that he has been able to establish some minor disputes of 

fact with respect to affidavits tendered by the defendants. 

When reviewing a grant of summary judgment this court is 

obliged to examine the record to "determine whether any genuine 

issue of material fact pertinent to the ruling remains, and if 

not, whether the substantive law was correctly applied." Setliff 

v. Memorial Hosp., 850 F.2d 1384, 1391 (10th Cir. 1988) (citations 

omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "In determining whether 

any genuine issues of material fact exist, the record must be 

construed liberally in favor of the party opposing the summary 

judgment." Setliff, 850 F.2d at 1391-92; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e). This deferential stance does not mean that any alleged 

factual dispute will suffice to defeat a motion for summary 

judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 274-48 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2228 Document: 01019971955 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 3 
(1986) (mere existence of some alleged factual dispute will not 

defeat an otherwise proper motion for summary judgment). Instead, 

such allegations must create genuine issues of material fact. 

The "materiality" requirement assures that "[o]nly disputes over 

facts which might affect the outcome of the suit under the 

governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary 

judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. To defeat a properly 

supported motion for summary judgment the non-moving party must 

bring forward significant probative evidence; this may be equated 

with the substantial evidence standard used to determine whether a 

directed verdict is appropriate. See,~, State Farm Life Ins. 

Co. v. Gutterman, 896 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1990). And, 

discovery may be refused when the plaintiff's objective is vague 

and ill-defined, and appears to be nothing more than a fishing 

expedition, hoping that something will turn up. See Anthony v. 

United States, 667 F.2d 870, 880 (10th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 

457 U.S. 1133 (1982). 

We have examined every page of the record submitted to us, 

and all of Mr. Bishop's contentions, and are satisfied that 

summary judgment was appropriate in this case. We are also 

satisfied that Mr. Bishop's complaint regarding his parents and 

aunt and uncle is frivolous, as ruled by the district court, since 

no state action is sufficiently alleged in the complaint to permit 

a suit against those individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Mr. 

Bishop is not a member of a protected class cognizable under 42 

U.S.C. § 1985. Other allegations necessary to bring a suit under 

§ 1985 are also absent. There are, as observed by the district 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2228 Document: 01019971955 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 4 
- court, a multitude of grounds upon which dismissal of this case 

could be supported. We affirm the district court substantially 

for the reasons set forth in the district courts opinion. Mandate shall 

issue forthw i th. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2228 Document: 01019971955 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 5