Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03225/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03225-0/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 L D Unit.ed States Court of Appeal!' 

Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 13 1993 

J.T. GARNER, ) ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

Plaintiff-Appellant , 

v. 

CAROL G. GREEN, Kansas Appellate 

Court Clerk, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-3225 

(D . C. No. 92-3025-8) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge , TACHA, and KELLY , 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 case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

J.T. Garner appeals a n order of the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas dismissing his claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915 (d ) . 

Garner sued Carol G. Green, Clerk of the Kansas Court of Appeals, 

alleging that she viol ated his constitutional right of access to 

* 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 collate ral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

------ ---------

Appellate Case: 92-3225 Document: 010110200914 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 1 
the courts. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C . § 1291 and 

affirm. 

Mr. Garner is incarcerated in a Kansas state correctional 

facility for the murder of Frederick Iwert. The record indicates 

that Garner filed an appeal in the victim's probate case, Matter 

of the Estate of Frederick A.J. Iwert. a/k/a Fred Iwert, No. 91-

66709-A. Garner alleged that the victim's brother, Waldemer 

Iwert, committed the murder and apparently sought to deny Waldemer 

any ill-gotten gains. The appeal was dismissed on November 14, 

1991 for Garner's failure to file proper briefs. Garner did not 

appeal this decision in the Kansas courts. 

Garner filed this prose civil rights action against Ms. 

Green, alleging that, in her capacity as court clerk, she deprived 

him of his constitutional right of access to the courts by failing 

to (1) file certain of his documents, (2) respond to certain 

submitted documents, and (3 ) return file -stamped copies of other 

documents. The district court concluded that the court clerk 

enjoyed either absolute or qualified immunity and that, although 

the Kansas Court of Appeals did not respond to all of Garner's 

correspondence, it had afforded him sufficient access to the 

Kansas courts. The district court therefore dismissed Garner's 

civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 191S (d ) . On 

appeal, Garner contends that dismissal was inappropriate because 

Green enjoyed no immunity for her "willful and deliberate" refusal 

to file his "vital documents." 

We first examine our jurisdiction to hear this appeal . 

Fede ral Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) conditions federal 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3225 Document: 010110200914 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 2 
appellate jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal . 

See Fed. R. App. P. 3. Mr. Garner's notice of appeal in this 

case, filed during the pendency of his motion for reconsideration, 

was premature and did not confer jurisdiction on this court. See 

Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F . 2d 1120, 1122 (10th Cir. 1991) (notice 

of appeal filed during pendency of tolling motion a nullity and 

not saved by "ripening" principle). A document intended to serve 

as an appellate brief, however, is effective as a notice of appeal 

if it gives the notice required by Fed. R. App. P. 3 and is filed 

within the time specified by Fed. R. App. P. 4. Smith v. Barry. 

112 S. Ct. 678, 682 (1992). Garner gave notice of appeal by 

filing his appellate brief within thirty days after the district 

court entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration and 

thereby satisfied these j urisdictional requirements. 

We review a dismissal under§ 1915(d) to determine whether 

the plaintiff either has advanced an "indisputably meritless legal 

theory" or has proffered "claims whose factual contentions are 

clearly baseless." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989 ). 

The Supreme Court specifically stated that claims against clearly 

immune parties are based on indisputably meritless legal theories. 

Id. 

We first note that the bulk of Garner's claim against Green 

is precluded by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. See 

McKinney v. Oklahoma, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Although the precise scope of court clerks' immunity is unsettled, 

see Valdez v. City and County of De nver, 878 F.2d 1285 , 1287 n.3 

(10 th Cir. 1989) , it is clear that their immunity extends to 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3225 Document: 010110200914 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 3 
actions taken pursuant to court orders and judges' instructions, 

see id. at 1288-89; Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F .2d 852, 855-56 

(10th Cir. 1981). In this case, Garner complains that Ms. Green 

denied his requests for file-stamped copies of his submitted 

documents and that dismissal of the appeal was inappropriate 

because his briefs were sufficient. First, pursuant to local 

rule, the Kansas Court of Appeals returns file-stamped copies only 

if the litigant provides stamped, self-addressed envelopes. It is 

undisputed that Green was not authorized to grant Garner's 

requests for file-stamped copies because Garner did not comply 

with that rule. Second, to the extent that Garner complains about 

Green entering an order dismissing the appeal based on the 

inadequate briefs, Green was simply implementing the court's 

disposition of the appeal. In both cases, Green's conduct was the 

product of judicial order or instruction, and she is thus 

absolutely immune for that conduct . 

Garner's other complaints center on two documents allegedly 

submitted by Garner and returned unfiled and without explanation: 

(1) an October 19, 1991 "Motion for Clearer Statement "; and (2) an 

October 22, 1991 "Show Cause Order." Because the filing of 

documents is a ministerial act, the clerk is not absolutely immune 

from claims in that regard. See Henriksen, 644 F.2d at 856. With 

respect to these allegations, however, we affirm the dismissal not 

on immunity grounds but because we find no merit to the claim. We 

first note that Garner has not included in the record a copy of 

the allegedly unfiled and returned "Show Cause Order." Thus, we 

have no evidence that such a document actually exists. Garner 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3225 Document: 010110200914 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 4 
does include a copy of the allegedly unfiled and returned "Motion 

for Clearer Statement" but fails to explain how Green's alleged 

failure to file this document prejudiced him. That motion merely 

requested the court to move forward with his previously submitted 

motion for a default judgment in his favor. Such a motion, 

however, presupposes a properly filed appeal. We fail to see how 

Garner's inadequate appeal was prejudiced by the clerk's alleged 

failure to file a duplicative document requesting unavailable 

relief. 

The district court properly concluded that Garner's complaint 

was without legal merit. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the certificate of probable cause are GRANTED. The 

order of the district court dismissing Garner's complaint is 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

- 5 -

-----

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3225 Document: 010110200914 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 5