Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03302/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03302-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

FI LED 

United Statci; Coun of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

STEVE WANAMAKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant-, 

Cross-Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM HALVORSEN, 

Defendant-AppelleeCross-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

OCT 1 0 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3302 & 

No. 89-3303 

(D.C. No. 86-4167-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

The issue in this case is whether the defendant William 

Halvorsen, acting in his official capacity as County Attorney for 

Marshall County, Kansas, enjoyed absolute immunity for actions 

taken by him with regard to his questioning of plaintiff Steve 

Wanamaker, then the Sheriff of Marshall County, and his request 

that Mr. Wanamaker take a leave of absence for purposes of seeking 

psychological evaluation and/or treatment. The plaintiff brought 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3302 Document: 010110059554 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 1 
suit alleging various constitutional causes of action, based on 

42 u.s.c. §§ 1983 and 1985, and state tort claims. 

The district court dismissed the suit as to Mr. Halvorsen, by 

then the lone remaining defendant, finding him to be absolutely 

immune under the rule of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 

(1976). 

We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the 

district court, noting particularly our agreement that the 

activity of the prosecutor here falls well within his limited 

right to gather necessary information before proceeding with a 

criminal prosecution as that right was identified by the Third 

Circuit in Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d 1203, 1215 (3d Cir. 

1979), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981). 

Under Kansas statute, the County Attorney is authorized to 

initiate and prosecute mental illness proceedings. Kan. Stat. 

Ann. § 59-2912(5)(c) (1983 & Supp. 1989). Before initiating such 

a proceeding, it was especially prudent and important for the 

prosecutor to meet with the plaintiff and to determine whether the 

plaintiff was willing to seek treatment voluntarily. The obvious 

purpose of Mr. Halvorsen's activity was to inform his decision 

whether to use his statutory authority to bring the mental health 

proceeding, and, as such, is covered by the umbrella of absolute 

immunity. See Schieb v. Humane Soc'y, 582 F. Supp. 717, 723 (E.D. 

Mich. 1984). We share the opinion of the Third Circuit that to 

deny such immunity to prosecutors in this and similar 

circumstances would only foster uninformed decision-making. See 

Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F.2d at 1215. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3302 Document: 010110059554 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 2 
Appellant also complains about the district court's dismissal 

of his pendent state law claims on jurisdictional grounds. We 

find the district court's action to have been entirely 

appropriate. See Thatcher Enterprises v. Cache County Corp., 902 

F.2d 1472, 1478 (10th Cir. 1990). Because we have determined that 

Mr. Halvorsen is entitled to absolute immunity, it is unnecessary 

for us to consider appellant's remaining arguments. 

An additional matter deserves mention. It was highly 

inappropriate for Mr. Wanamaker in his brief to this court to 

simply recite the unsupported allegations of his complaint, 

passing those allegations off as fact, without any reference to 

the record for support. When a properly supported motion for 

summary judgment is made, the adverse party must come forward with 

specific facts to demonstrate that there are triable issues of 

material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A party moved against may not 

simply rely on the bare allegations of his or her pleadings to 

resist a summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

Because of our resolution of this appeal, it is unnecessary 

for us to address the issue raised by Mr. Halvorsen's 

cross-appeal. The cross-appeal is therefore DISMISSED. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3302 Document: 010110059554 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 3