Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05229/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05229-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L ...... PAppells 

TENTH CIRCUIT United~~ 

THOMAS R. SLIGAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HONORABLE B.R. BEASLEY, District 

Court Judge, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY G 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5229 

(D.C. No. 92-C-810-B) 

(N. Dist. of Okla.) 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Thomas R. Sligar (Sligar), appearing prose, appeals from the 

district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

against defendant-appellee, B.R. Beasley (Beasley), the state 

* 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: 92-5229 Document: 010110110056 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 1 
'• 

district court 

brought against 

imprisonment in 

Oklahoma. 

judge who presided in state criminal proceedings 

Sligar resulting in Sligar's conviction and 

the Dick Conner Correctional Center, Hominy, 

Sligar's complaint alleged that Beasley denied him of his 

constitutional rights by (a) refusing to release Sligar from jail 

in violation of his right to due process and equal protection of 

the law, (b) forcing certain witnesses, who were also alleged 

victims, to testify against Sligar in violation of his due process 

and equal protection rights, and (c) failing to obtain proper 

affidavits when receiving a number of continuances of Sligar's 

preliminary hearings. 

Sligar alleged that Beasley had no jurisdiction over the 

"subject matter" and that Beasley was not acting "as a competent 

official of the court and [was] therefore not entitled to be free 

from civil action under 42 U.S.C § 1983." (R., Vol. I, Tab 1, p. 

4). As relief, Sligar sought $25,000.00 "in punitive damages for 

pain and suffering ... " Id. at 5. 

The district court granted Sligar's motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, while at 

the same time dismissing Sligar's complaint as frivolous. 

Tab 3. We agree with the district court's action. 

The district court found, 

allegations against Beasley" ... 

and we agree, 

concern actions 

that Sligar's 

taken by him 

(Beasley) in his judicial capacity" and, consequently, " ... the 

doctrine of absolute immunity clearly precludes recovery by 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-5229 Document: 010110110056 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 2 
Plaintiff against Defendant Beasley." Id. The district court 

cited and relied on Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) and 

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967). We agree. See also, Butz v. 

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 508-09 (1978) (absolute immunity protects 

judges from liability for acts taken in the exercise of their 

judicial functions); Russ v. Uppah, 972 F.2d 300, 303 (10th Cir. 

1992) (judges and others performing judicial or "quasi-judicial" 

functions enjoy absolute immunity from monetary damages for a 

limited scope of actions), quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 

219, 225-29 (1988). 

Sligar contends that the district court's dismissal of his 

complaint was a direct violation of Plaisance v. Phelps, 845 F.2d 

107 (5th Cir. 1988). We have read that opinion carefully and 

conclude that Plaisance has no bearing on the immunity issue 

involved here. 

We AFFIRM. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5229 Document: 010110110056 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 3