Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01134/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01134-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALU 1JsJ-~Jippeale 

n Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

SARA STUMP; ANDREW M. OCRANT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v . 

DARYL G. GATES; DIANE J. SEXTON, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SUEANN OCRANT; CITY OF GREENWOOD 

VILLAGE, a municipality; ARAPAHOE 

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

Defendants. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEB 1 l. 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1134 

(D.C. No. 91-B-509) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District 

Judge . 

**Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for p·u.rposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendants-appellants Daryl G. Gates and Diane J. Sexton 

appeal from the district court's order denying them qualified 

immunity. Gates and Sexton were, respectively, chief of police 

and detective for the City of Greenwood Village during the time 

pertinent to this suit. On May 20, 1984 , Lawrence Ocrant was 

found shot to death in his Greenwood Village home. After an 

investigation, the police and county coroner reported the death as 

a suicide. However, allegations of impropriety prompted a grand 

jury investigation of the matter. On June 14, 1990, a single 

paragraph of the grand jury's report was made public, disclosing 

the conclusion that Ocrant's death was a homicide. 

Plaintiffs, Ocrant's children, filed this lawsuit alleging in 

part a deliberate failure to follow certain procedures during the 

investigation into Ocrant's death. This included failure to 

perform an autopsy, destruction of evidence, and cremation of 

Ocrant ' s body contrary to his religious beliefs. Their complaint 

asserted constitutional claims for interference with their right 

of access to the courts and conspiracy in addition to several 

pendent state claims. 

The district court dismissed some claims, upheld others, and 

denied defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified 

immunity. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint and, following 

more motions to dismiss, the district court entered an order 

specifically reaffirming its earlier ruling denying qualified 

immunity, stating that the de fendants raised no argument that was 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 2 
not previously addressed. Gates and Sexton filed a timely notice 

of appeal. The district court's collateral order on this issue is 

appealable as a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See 

Mitchell v . Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985). 

Initially, we note the qualified immunity defense was raised 

in motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 

Fed . R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). This posture limits our review in two 

ways. First, in reviewing Rule 12(b) (6) determinations by the 

district court, we must accept all factual allegations in the 

complaint as true. See Dababneh v. FDIC, 971 F.2d 428, 431 (10th 

Cir. 1992). The record as yet contains no evidence, and we 

express no view regarding plaintiffs' ability to prove their 

allegations should this case proceed further in the district 

court. Second, our review is limited to the district court's 

denial of qualified immunity in connection with plaintiffs' right 

of access and conspiracy claims. We review this determination de 

nova. Patrick v. Miller, 953 F.2d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 1992) . 

The thrust of the amended complaint is that Gates and Sexton 

acted in concert to cover up the cause of Ocrant's death by 

deliberately destroying the evidence that would support a wrongful 

death action against the alleged murderer of their father, and 

that this cover up resulted in a violation of plaintiffs' 

constitutional right of access to the courts. The specificity of 

plaintiffs' factual allegations are important to our determination 

on the issue of qualified immunity. Here, plaintiffs have stated 

with particularity the conduct they allege violated their right of 

access to the courts. The district court, in its order denying 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 3 
motions following the second amended complaint, noted: "I 

emphasize that it is Gates' and Sexton's alleged acts of 

destroying evidence and precluding an adequate investigation into 

Lawrence Ocrant's death that form the basis of [the court's 

initial ruling denying Gates and Sexton qualified immunity]." 

Appellant's App . , doc. 11 at 2-3. 

In reviewing the grant or denial of qualified immunity, t his 

court must "determine whether defendants violated 'clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a 

reasonable person would have known' at the time the challenged 

conduct occurred." Patrick, 953 F.2d at 1243 (quoting Harlow v. 

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). The test is one of 

objective reasonableness, in light of the law at the time of the 

alleged violation. Jantz v . Muci, 976 F . 2d 623, 627 (10th Cir. 

1992) . The burden is on the plaintiffs to show that the law was 

clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. 

Patrick, 953 F . 2d at 1243; Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456, 1460 

(10th Cir. 1991) . "For plaintiffs to defeat a claim of qualified 

immunity, the 'contours of the right must be sufficiently clear 

that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing 

violates that right.'" Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 696 (10th 

Cir. 1990 ) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S . 635, 640 

(198 7)) , cert. denied, 111 S . Ct . 1622 (1991) . 

In order for a right to have been clearly established, this 

court requires "some, but not necessarily precise, factual 

correspondence" between cases predating the alleged violation and 

the facts of the case in question. Calhoun v. Gaines, No . 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 4 
91-6152, 1992 WL 387385, at *4 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 1992). "In 

essence, this standard requires officials to know well developed 

legal principles and to relate and apply them to analogous factual 

situations." Id. The parties naturally characterize the 

qualified irmnunity issue differently. We believe, however, that 

the appropriate statement of that issue in the context of the 

allegations of this complaint is whether a reasonable officer 

would have known at the time of Ocrant's death that a deliberate 

failure to investigate and quick destruction of evidence that 

might have proved homicide was a violation of the decedent's 

children's right of access to the courts. 

The right of access to the courts has developed primarily in 

cases where prison regulations or restrictions operated to deprive 

inmates of their constitutional right to seek redress from the 

judicial system. See. e.g., Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) 

(requiring prisons to provide adequate law libraries or legal 

assistance); Johnson v . Avery. 393 U. S . 483 (1969) (striking prison 

regulation 

filings) . 

prohibiting inmates from helping each other with legal 

Nonetheless, this right has been recognize d in a 

variety of other contexts where deliberate state conduct barred 

plaintiffs from meaningful access to judicial review of their 

claims. See. e.g., Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S . 371, 383 

(1971) (prohibiting state's refusal to allow indigents to file for 

divorce without payment of costs and fees); McKay v. Harmnock, 730 

F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir. 1984) (remanding for consideration of 

right of access claim where state officer threatened retaliation 

if c ivil right s claim filed); Shaw v. Neece, 727 F.2d 947, 949 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 5 
(10th Cir.) (recognizing right of access claim in nonprison 

context, but dismissing because facts did not support claim) , 

cert. denied, 466 U.S. 976 (1984 ) ; Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 

161, 163 (10th Cir. 1976) (recognizing right of access claim 

arising from threat to withhold monies if suit filed); Singer v. 

Wadman, 595 F. Supp. 188, 301-02 (D. Utah 1982 ) (noting cover-up 

of shooting death could amount to violation of right of access if 

facts showed "deliberation" or "severity" ) , aff'd, 745 F.2d 606 

(10th Cir. 1984 ) , cert. denied, 470 U. S. 1 028 (1985). 

One case plaintiffs cite to support their argument that the 

law was clearly established at the time of Ocrant's death closely 

resembles the facts here : Ryland v . Shapiro , 708 F . 2d 967 (5th 

Cir. 1983) (right of access for wrongful death action violated 

when district attorney covered up mu rder c ommitted by prosecutor). 

This court has stated that a single case from another circuit is 

not sufficient to clearly establish the law in this circuit. See 

Woodward v. City o f Worland, 977 F.2d 1392, 1397 (10th Cir. 1992 ) ; 

Medina v. City & County of Denver, 960 F . 2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 

1992). Nevertheless, we do not think Ryland is an aberration. 

Shortly after the district court decided the case before us the 

Seventh Circuit in Bell v . City of Milwauke e, 746 F . 2d 1205 (7th 

Cir . 1984 ), held that a charge of conspiracy between polic e 

officers to cover up the killing of a fleeing suspect stated a 

cause of action under the civil rights laws: "a conspiracy to 

cover up a killing, t hereby obstructing legitimate efforts t o 

vindicate the killing through judicial redress, interferes with 

the due proce ss right of access to courts, which is protected by 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 6 
[42 U. S . C.] Sections 1985(2) and 1985(3 ) . 11 Id. at 1261 {footnote 

omitted). We emphasize that all that is before us are the 

allegations of the complaint, alleging deliberate action and 

conspiracy, which we must take as true. We believe that any 

reasonable officer would have known that if the conduct occurred 

as alleged by plaintiffs in this case, it would violate the 

constitutional rights of the decedent's children. Cf. DeLoach v. 

Bevers, 922 F.2d 618, 621-23 {10th Cir. 1990) {denying qualified 

immunity to police officer on§ 1983 claims in light of deliberate 

conduct amounting to coverup), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct . 65 (1991). 

Further, the facts set out in the complaint are specific enough--

create enough of an inference of wrongdoing--to warrant denial of 

the motion for dismissal on the pleadings. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-1134 Document: 010110170339 Date Filed: 02/11/1993 Page: 8