Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05249/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05249-0/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 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT United State& ~rt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

MICHAEL D. FARMER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; BRADFORD 

GRIFFITH; SUPREME COURT; and 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEPARTMENT 

OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

MAY 2 7 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5249 

(D.C. No. 92-C-502-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 92-5249 Document: 010110115799 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff Michael Farmer is serving sentences for state 

criminal convictions on two counts of molesting his adopted minor 

daughters. After his parental rights were terminated, he filed 

this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Supreme Court, Oklahoma Department 

of Human Services, and the Oklahoma District Court judge who 

presided over the parental rights termination proceedings violated 

his constitutional rights throughout the course of the 

proceedings. Essentially, he sought to reverse the trial judge's 

decision terminating his parental rights. 1 He also filed a motion 

for appointment of counsel which was denied. The district court 

subsequently granted defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Farmer's 

complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), finding res judicata 

barred further litigation of his claims. 

grounds. 

We affirm on other 

The crux of Mr. Farmer's complaint is that the defendants 

violated his federal constitutional right to equal protection, as 

well as Oklahoma constitutional and statutory law, when they 

terminated his parental rights without a jury trial or waiver. 

- Mr. Farmer also claims he is entitled to court-appointed counsel 

because he has satisfied this court's criteria for appointment of 

counsel in special civil appeals. 2 

1Mr. Farmer litigated his case before the Oklahoma District Court 

for Tulsa County, the Oklahoma Court of Appeals, and the Oklahoma 

Supreme Court. The decision of the trial court terminating his 

parental rights was upheld. See Matter of D.D.F., 801 P.2d 703 

(Okla. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2027 (1991). 

2The "Plan for Appointment of Counsel in Special Civil Appeals," 

Addendum II of the Tenth Circuit Rules of the Court, provides that 

(Continued to next page.) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5249 Document: 010110115799 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 2 

.r 
\ 

"[T]he sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law which 

we review de nova," applying "the same scrutiny to the complaint 

as did the trial court. " Ayala v. Joy Mfg. Co. , 8 77 F. 2d 84 6, 84 7 

(10th Cir. 1989) (quoting Morgan v. City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 

978 (10th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted)). Accordingly, "[w]e 

will uphold a dismissal [under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6)] only when 

it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support 

of the claims that would entitle [him] to relief." Jacobs, 

Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111, 1115 

(10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). 

"[A] State is not a person within the meaning of§ 1983." 

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). 

Thus, although "[s]ection 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy 

many deprivations of civil liberties, ... it does not provide a 

federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for 

alleged deprivations of civil liberties." Id. at 66. Moreover, 

"in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its 

agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by 

the Eleventh Amendment," Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. 

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (citations omitted) (emphasis 

added), "whether the relief sought is legal or equitable." 

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986). The State of 

Oklahoma has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 

Nichols v. Department of Corrections, 631 P.2d 746, 750-51 (Okla. 

(Continued from prior page.) 

a judge may order the appointment of counsel "in special cases for 

persons who are financially unable to obtain the services of 

counsel." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5249 Document: 010110115799 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 3 
19 81) . Thus, we conclude both the State and its agencies are 

immune from suit by Mr. Farmer. 

Similarly, dismissal of Mr. Farmer's complaint against Judge 

Griffith was appropriate because federal district courts do not 

have subject matter jurisdiction to review final state court 

decisions. · See Van Sickle v. Holloway. 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th 

Cir. 1986) ("A federal district court does not have the authority 

to review final judgments of a state court in judicial 

proceedings; such review may be had only in the United States 

Supreme Court.") (citations omitted); Anderson v. State of Colo., 

793 F.2d 262, 263-64 (10th Cir. 1986) (District court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction over§ 1983 claim essentially seeking 

to undo state court's child custody decision.); 28 U.S.C. § 1257. 

The district court properly dismissed Farmer's complaint for 

"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6). The other issues raised by Mr. Farmer are 

rendered moot by our determination that the defendants may not be 

sued in federal court. 

AFFIRMED. 

"l ' 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-5249 Document: 010110115799 Date Filed: 05/27/1993 Page: 4