Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06360/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06360-0/pdf.json

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

---

F I L .._ . .J 

United States Coμrt qf Appeals 

')'l'Tit), "'"!'-1~1~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

------------= Clerk 

DENNIS L. FRITZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DIANE HAMMONS, Asst. Attorney 

General; CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS; 

JUDGES OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF 

APPEALS, HONORABLES JAMES F . LANE, 

GARY L. LUMPKIN, TOM BRETT, ED H. 

PARKS, AND CHARLES A. JOHNSON. 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No . 92-6360 

D.C. No . CIV-92-1401-A) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims. Plaintiff filed suit in the court 

below, seeking damages and injunctive relief, against an Oklahoma 

assistant attorney general and the judges of the Oklahoma Court of 

Crimina l Appeals for alleged actions relating to Plaintiff's 

direct appeal of his criminal conviction. Plaintiff alleged that 

* 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, r e s judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

3 6 . 3 . 

** 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 } ; 1 0 th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9. The case therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-6360 Document: 010110199134 Date Filed: 03/30/1993 Page: 1 
the assistant attorney general misrepresented the record in an 

appellate brief and the Court of Criminal Appeals relied on the 

alleged misrepresentation in denying his appeal. The district 

court dismissed Plaintiff's action as frivolous under 28 U. S.C. 

§ 1915 (d ) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we 

review for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S . Ct. 

1728, 1734 (1992 ) . 

Frivolous or malicious claims are properly dismissed under 

§ 1915 (d ) . Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F . 2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991). 

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in 

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S . 319, 325 (1989 ) . A 

claim against defendants who are clearly immune from suit is 

legally frivolous. Id. at 3 27 . 

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from suits for 

civil damages when such suits are based on the prosecutor's 

performance of functions "intimately associated with the judicial 

phase of the criminal process." Imbler v . Pachtman, 424 U.S . 409, 

430-31 (1976) . The preparation of an appellate brief is without 

question intimately associated with the judicial phase of the 

criminal process. Thus, the assistant attorney general is 

abso lutely immune from Plaintiff's suit for damages . 

Judges are also entitled to absolute immunity from suits for 

civil damages when such suits are predicated on the performance of 

judicial acts. Schepp v. Fremo nt County, 900 F.2d 1448, 451 (10th 

Cir. 1990 ) . Denying an appeal is clearly a judicial act; 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6360 Document: 010110199134 Date Filed: 03/30/1993 Page: 2 
accordingly, the judges here are absolutely immune from 

Plaintiff's suit for damages. 

Absolute immunity is not a bar, however, to injunctive relief 

against a judicial officer acting in his judicial capacity or a 

prosecutor performing functions associated with the judicial phase 

of the criminal process. See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-

42 (1984 ) . Despite this lack of immunity as to injunctive relief, 

Plaintiff's claim still fails because Plaintiff's request is for 

immediate release from prison. The sole federal remedy for a 

challenge to the fact or duration of imprisonment is a writ of 

habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973 ) . 

In the absence of "an arguable basis in law or in fact," 

petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d) . 

SO ORDERED. 

- 3 -

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6360 Document: 010110199134 Date Filed: 03/30/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-6360 Document: 010110199134 Date Filed: 03/30/1993 Page: 4