Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03166/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03166-0/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 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirruit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 5 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk THOMAS ODELL KELLY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

R. L. MECK; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, ) 

E. JAY GREENO, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 90-3166 

(D.C. No. 90-3129-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Thomas Odell Kelly, a pre-trial detainee, appeals from the 

district court's sua sponte dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various law 

enforcement officials. 

Although a prose complaint should be held to a less 

stringent standard, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), it 

may be dismissed under§ 1915(d) as frivolous if it "lacks an 

* 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. 

1 

Appellate Case: 90-3166 Document: 010110064859 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 1 
• 

arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 

109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). "Dismissal under 1915(d) is 

discretionary and our review must focus on whether the district 

court abused that discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's 

complaint." Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1475 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

In seven, hand-written pages, Kelly's complaint appears to 

allege that the criminal charges against him were improperly 

instigated and developed by all parties concerned--in particular, 

the judge, prosecutor, public defender, and investigating detective. The judge, however, is absolutely immune. Van Sickle, 791 

F.2d at 1434-35; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); 

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). As is the prosecutor. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 424-27 (1976). 

Although public defenders can be held liable under§ 1983 if 

they have conspired with state officials, they do not act under 

color of state law by performing the traditional functions of a 

lawyer as counsel to a criminal defendant. Tower v. Glover, 467 

U.S. 914, 920 (1984). Kelly's complaint contains no allegations 

of conspiracy or any other wrongdoing by the public defender. 

Since the district judge dismissed Kelly's claims against the 

public defender without prejudice, Kelly is free to file an 

amended complaint stating arguable factual bases for§ 1983 

liability if they exist. 

With regard to the investigating detective, the complaint 

alleges that he had insufficient evidence to arrest Kelly, and 

that he failed to adequately investigate evidence that would 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3166 Document: 010110064859 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 2 
exonerate Kelly. The allegations clearly challenge the fact of 

confinement, and thus are properly cognizable under habeas corpus. 

Parkhurst v. State of Wyoming, 641 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir. 1985). 

But, since Kelly's criminal case is still pending, he has not yet 

exhausted his state remedies. Kelly's remedy is to pursue his 

arguments in the criminal case, not to file a collateral civil 

action. Federal courts should not ordinarily interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Parkhurst, 641 F.2d at 777. We 

decline to do so now. 

As a final matter, buried in the complaint are several other 

conclusory allegations that the district court did not 

specifically address. Kelly asserts that he has ineffective 

counsel, that he has been prevented access to the courts, and that 

the prison authorities have recklessly disregarded his unspecified 

"medical condition." However, Kelly's counsel provides him access 

to the courts. Love v. Summit County, 776 F.2d 908, 913-14 (10th 

Cir. 1985); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 830-31 (1977). If the 

counsel is indeed ineffective, Kelly will have an effective remedy 

on appeal. Moreover, if any of Kelly's claims (including the 

prison's alleged but unidentified disregard for his medical 

condition) have arguable factual bases, his counsel may properly 

present them. 

"Section 1915(d)'s term "frivolous," when applied to a 

complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but 

also the fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke, 109 S. Ct. at 

1831. We conclude that Kelly's complaint lacks an arguable basis 

in law and fact, and that he can make no rational argument on the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3166 Document: 010110064859 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 3 
law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. 

Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees is denied. See 28 u.s.c. § 1915(a); 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 

F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

It is further ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. The appeal is dismissed because no rational argument can 

be made; and 

3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3166 Document: 010110064859 Date Filed: 10/25/1990 Page: 4