Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01011/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

PUBLISH AUG 2 G 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT L. HOECKER 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RONALD W. GREGORY, DOROTHY 

L. GREGORY, RONALD W. 

GREGORY, JR., and GREGORY 

ESTATE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

UNITED STATES/UNITED STATES ) 

BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE ) 

DISTRICT OF COLORADO, Jointly,) 

HON. CHARLES E. MATHESON, HON.) 

PATRICIA A. CLARK, HON. ) 

SIDNEY BROOKS, ROSS J. ) 

WABEKE, Interim Trustee, ) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) 

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ) 

COLORADO, HON. SHERMAN G. ) 

FINESILVER, Jointly and ) 

Individually, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

No. 91-1011 

(D.C. No. 90-JB-551) 

(D. Colo.) 

Clerk 

Ronald w. Gregory, Dorothy L. Gregory & Ronald w. Gregory, Jr., 

pro se. 

Michael J. Norton, United States Attorney, and William J. Pharo, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for 

Defendants-Appellees United States, United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the District of Colorado, Hon. Charles E. Matheson, Hon. 

Patricia A. Clark, Hon. Sidney B. Brooks, United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado & Hon. Sherman G. Finesilver. 

Michael S. McCarthy and Russell o. Stewart, Faegre & Benson, 

Denver, Colorado for Defendant-Appellee Ross J. Wabeke. 

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 1 
Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. * 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiffs-appellants appeal from the district court's order 

granting judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing their 

complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs Ronald w. Gregory and 

Dorothy L. Gregory are debtors in an underlying bankruptcy. 

Plaintiff Ronald W. Gregory, Jr. was involved in business ventures 

with the debtors. This action has its genesis in plaintiffs' 

dissatisfaction with bankruptcy and related proceedings. In the 

main, plaintiffs sought damages against the defendants, alleging a 

myriad of federal constitutional and state law claims. They also 

sought a stay of all bankruptcy proceedings pending consideration 

of this case. Finally, they asked that the bankruptcy code be 

declared unconstitutional. All defendants filed motions to 

dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), the district 

court first dismissed the judicial defendants (Judge Finesilver 

and Bankruptcy Judges Matheson, Clark and Brooks) based on 

absolute judicial immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 

356-57 (1978). Then the district court dismissed the governmental 

defendants (United States, federal district and bankruptcy courts) 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 2 
based on sovereign immunity. See United States v. Testan, 424 

U.S. 392, 399 (1976). Finally, relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(5), the district court dismissed the defendant bankruptcy 

trustee (Mr. Wabeke) because plaintiffs attempted to serve the 

summons and complaint by leaving a copy with a secretary at the 

trustee's law firm. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1); Daly-Murphy v. 

Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 355 (9th Cir. 1987); Pollack v. Meese, 737 

F. Supp. 663, 666-67 (D.D.C. 1990). All dismissals were with 

prejudice. 

Liberal construction is accorded the pro se pleadings in this 

case. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Jaxon v. Circle 

K Corp., 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir. 1985); Hall v. Bellman, 

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In reviewing a district 

court's decision on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim, the allegations of the complaint are accepted as true and 

dismissal of the complaint is warranted "only if it is clear that 

no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be 

proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & 

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). Applying these standards, the 

district court's dismissal of the complaint, insofar as it seeks 

money damages, against the judicial and governmental defendants is 

affirmed based on absolute judicial and sovereign immunity. 

Although plaintiffs also sought to have the entire bankruptcy code 

declared unconstitutional, the complaint lacks any legal or 

factual specificity which would allow us reasonably to read the 

pleadings as stating a recognized claim, despite the plaintiffs' 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 3 
nonlawyer status. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109-10. Thus, insofar 

as the complaint seeks declaratory and injuctive relief, the 

dismissal of the complaint is affirmed. 

The district court's dismissal with prejudice of the trustee 

is slightly more complex. The general rule is that "when a court 

finds that service is insufficient but curable, it generally 

should quash the service and give the plaintiff an opportunity to 

re-serve the defendant." Pell v. Azar Nut Co., 711 F.2d 949, 950 

n.2 (10th Cir. 1983). In this case, proper service of process 

would be futile, however, because, after stripping the complaint 

of its many unsupported legal conclusions, see Hall, 935 F.2d at 

1110, plaintiffs seek to hold the trustee liable for executing the 

bankruptcy court's orders concerning collection and disposition of 

estate property. For example, plaintiffs seek to recover on 

claims that the trustee, in the course of regular bankruptcy 

proceedings, obtained and executed bankruptcy court orders 

authorizing the sale of mining property and declaring a mining 

bond the property of the estate. 

In T & W Inv. Co. v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801 (10th Cir. 1978), we 

held that a state court receiver following the orders of a state 

district court judge was absolutely immune from civil liability on 

civil rights claims concerning the application and disposition of 

receivership assets. Id. at 802-03. Like the plaintiff in T & W, 

the plaintiffs in this case had opportunity and did object 

throughout the underlying proceedings. The debtors have appealed 

virtually every order of the bankruptcy court, including the order 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 4 
converting the case from chapter eleven to chapter seven 

bankruptcy and orders allowing the sale of real property and 

equipment. This case is indistinguishable from T & W which we 

have followed in granting absolute immunity to those executing 

facially valid judicial orders. 1 See Turney v. O'Toole, 898 F.2d 

1470, 1472-74 (10th Cir. 1990); Valdez v. City & County of Denver, 

878 F.2d 1285, 1287-88 (10th Cir. 1989). Thus, it "appears beyond 

doubt that the plaintiff [s] can prove no set of facts in support 

of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief" and the 

district court's dismissal of the trustee with prejudice should be 

upheld. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

We recognize that this issue had not yet been raised below 

because the trustee sought a Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal which the 

district court granted. Still, sua sponte invocation of Rule 

12(b)(6) on appeal may be appropriate in those rare instances in 

1 Although the scope of absolute immunity for private lawyers 

is narrow and generally confined to defamation claims, see Burns 

v. Reed, 111 S. Ct. 1934, 1941 (1991); Robinson v. Volkswagenwerk 

AG, No. 90-5082, slip op. at 6-8 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 1991) [1991 WL 

141481], absolute quasijudicial immunity for a lawyer serving as a 

trustee and merely executing the bankruptcy judge's orders 

concerning the collection and disposition of estate property is 

essential for the efficient functioning of the bankruptcy court. 

As we observed in Valdez: 

Tension between trial judges and those officials 

responsible for enforcing their orders inevitably would 

result were there not absolute immunity for both. 

Kurtz, 588 F.2d at 802. Officials employed to implement 

facially valid court orders could choose: They may 

disregard the judge's orders and face discharge, or 

worse yet, criminal contempt, or they may fulfill their 

duty and risk being haled into court. 

878 F.2d at 1289. The trustee should not be forced to defend in 

another forum for merely executing the bankruptcy judge's orders. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 5 
. ' ' 

which a plaintiff cannot recover on the complaint because of a 

dispositive issue of law, see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 

327 (1989), and amendment would be for naught. 

Although dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) typically follow 

a motion to dismiss, giving plaintiff notice and an 

opportunity to amend his complaint, a court may dismiss 

sua sponte "when it is 'patently obvious' that the 

plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and 

allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would 

be futile." 

Hall, 935 F.2d at 1109-10 (quoting McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 

363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991) which quoted Baker v. Director, United 

States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1990 (per curiam) 

and cited Huxall v. First State Bank, 842 F.2d 249, 240 n.2 (10th 

Cir. 1988)). Appellate courts are not "required •.• to remand 

in futility," Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & 

Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 756-57 n.7 (1986); thus, we also 

affirm the district court's judgment dismissing the complaint 

against the trustee with prejudice. 

AFFIRMED. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-1011 Document: 01019731491 Date Filed: 08/26/1991 Page: 6