Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02137/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02137-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

OHI'l'ED S'l'A'l'ES COOR'!' OP APPEALS 

POR 'l'BE 'l'EN'l'B CIRCUIT 

Uaitcd States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAY 111990 

PIERRE STEPHEN; HELENA STEPHEN 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

CITY OF TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES; 

JOHN SAWYER; BARTOO SAND AND 

GRAVEL, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2137 

(D. C. No. 87-0913-HB) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* 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: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen (plaintiffs) appeal both an adverse 

summary judgment rendered prior to trial and an adverse judgment 

following a trial to the district court. 

The facts present no real controversy. Plaintiffs owned a 

building and conducted a business therein known as Bessie's Barn. 

The building was damaged by a fire and, on the same day, the 

defendant City passed a resolution condemning the building because 

of the fire damage. Plaintiffs appealed this resolution to the 

state district court, which upheld the resolution and ordered 

removal of portions of the building within thirty days and further 

gave plaintiffs fifteen days to clear all personal property and 

inventory from the building. The state court further ordered that 

if plaintiffs failed to comply with its order the City could 

perform these tasks and its costs would constitute a lien against 

the property. Plaintiffs neither complied with this order nor was 

this state court decision appealed. Plaintiffs continued to go to 

and from the building, bringing new inventory in, selling some 

inventory, and taking other items of personal property to the 

dump. Another hearing was subsequently held in the state district 

court upon the City's motion for an order allowing it to tear down 

the structure. At this hearing, plaintiffs were given fourteen 

days to have a contractor obtain a building permit and then six 

months within which to bring the building into compliance with the 

building codes. Mr. Stephen submitted a defective plan to the 

City and the request for a building permit was denied. Mr. 

Stephen then went back to state court and requested an extension 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 2 
of time because of deficient plans and specifications. The state 

court denied this request. The City then advertised and let a bid 

for the partial demolition of the building including the removal 

of certain personal property. The contractor removed some of 

plaintiffs' merchandise, and plaintiffs were subsequently ordered 

to stay off the premises by the City's chief of police. 

Plaintiffs instituted suit setting forth four counts. In 

count I, plaintiffs alleged that the City and its chief of police 

denied plaintiffs access to the building and thus deprived 

plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. The 

United States District Court granted summary judgment in favor of 

the defendants concerning this count, and plaintiffs do not appeal 

this decision. Count IV of the complaint set forth a claim of 

conversion of the personalty by the contractor. This was decided 

adversely to plaintiffs following trial. Again, plaintiffs do not 

appeal this decision. 

In count II of their complaint, plaintiffs alleged the City 

wrongfully denied them a building permit to repair their damaged 

building without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment 

on this count. In count III, the plaintiffs alleged the City 

denied them due process by failing to protect and preserve the 

contents of the building and asked for damages under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This count was decided adversely to plaintiffs following 

a trial to the bench. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 3 
The plaintiffs raise two issues on appeal, which they 

articulate as follows: 

1. The City's refusal to issue plaintiffs a building permit 

to repair their fire-damaged building was a confiscatory violation 

of the Fourteenth Amendment; and 

2. The City's failure to adequately protect plaintiffs' 

property was a confiscatory violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

At the outset, and prior to discussing the issues on appeal, 

this court notes appellants' failure to comply with certain rules 

of this court. Appellants have failed to include the grounds for 

jurisdiction as required by 10th Cir. R. 28.2(b); appellants have 

failed to set forth the applicable standard of review as required 

by 10th Cir. R. 28.2(c); and appellants have largely failed to 

direct this court to the record concerning certain of their 

factual allegations. We make note of these matters at this point 

simply to illustrate the fact that appellants' failure to comply 

with these rules has resulted in presenting a difficult task for 

this court. This task has been made even more difficult by 

appellants' failure to support their arguments with any legal 

authority. 

Plaintiffs first assert that the City refused to issue them a 

building permit because plaintiffs would not agree to dismiss 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 4 
• 

their lawsuit against the City's fire marshal. Appellants claim 

this arrogant state action constituted a violation of their civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. S 1983. This court is hampered in 

reviewing this contention in that appellants refer us to no 

relevant facts in the record, nor do they cite any legal authority 

to support their position. We have reviewed the record and find 

that it contains no evidence to support plaintiffs' contentions. 

Plaintiffs have cited to us no legal authority whatsoever, let 

alone any authority that might tend to show that the district 

court's conclusions of law were erroneous. 

Concerning appellants' 

clear. Appellants had two 

City, which were apparently 

second issue, the record is very 

administrative hearings before the 

conducted in accordance with New 

Mexico's Administrative Procedure Law. Appellants point to no 

factual or legal constitutional deficiency concerning these 

hearings. There apparently was written notice; at least one 

"full-blown" hearing with appellants' counsel present; and these 

hearings were appealed to the state district court where at least 

three court hearings transpired. Appellants have failed to 

support their contentions with legal authority. 

Having carefully considered appellants' brief and the record 

on appeal, we find no merit to appellants' contentions and we 

affirm the decision of the district court for substantially the 

same reasons articulated in the district court's order granting 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 5 
• 

summary judgment and in the court's remarks from the bench 

following trial. 

The City has filed a motion for recovery of costs and 

attorney fees asserting this appeal to be frivolous and 

unreasonably and vexatiously multiplicative. The City requests a 

total of $2,313.19, which includes itemized time and expenses. 

Plaintiffs filed neither a reply brief nor a response to this 

motion by the City. 

An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or the 

appellant's arguments of error are wholly without merit. Braley 

v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987). The fact that 

appellants are either unwilling or unable to comply with the rules 

of this court, coupled with appellants' failure to provide this 

court with any case authority to support its principal issues, 

amounts to a strong indication that the appeal is frivolous. 

When counsel appeal to this court, something more than a jury 

argument is demanded. This court demands, and the appellee has 

the right to expect, that appellant's factual assertions will in 

all instances be supported by references to the record. This 

court demands, and the appellee has the right to expect, that 

legal conclusions will be supported by appropriate reference to 

the law. If counsel desires to indulge his clients' wishes to 

appeal to this court, he must be prepared to abide by the rules of 

this court or pay his opponent for the costs incurred. Appellee 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 6 
• 

• 

has requested a total of $6,657.44, which appears to be facially 

reasonable. We therefore order counsel for appellant to show 

cause to this court, if any he has, within ten days of the entry 

of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed in the amount 

sought by appellees. We make it clear that the sanctions which 

may be imposed by this court shall not affect a similar motion 

presently pending before the trial court relating to recovery of 

attorney fees incurred by appellees before the trial court. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

- 7-

Appellate Case: 89-2137 Document: 01019970094 Date Filed: 05/11/1990 Page: 7