Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04098/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04098-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Uoitd States Court of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

STANLEY C. MANN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

JUDGE KENNETH RIGTRUP, DAVID ) 

B. DEE, PHILIP R. FISHLER, ) 

REGNAL W. GARFF, JR., RUSSELL) 

W. BENCH, JUDITH M. BILLINGS, ) 

GORDON R. HALL, PAMELA ) 

GREENWOOD, Hon., J. ROBERT ) 

BULLOCK, ROBERT L. NEWEY, ) 

DENNIS J. FREDERICK, JOHN A. ) 

ROKICH, WATKISS & CAMPBELL, ) 

INC., H. WAYNE WADSWORTH, ) 

STEPHEN A. TROST, DAVIDS. ) 

YOUNG, CHRISTENSEN, JENSEN & ) 

POWELL, INC., RAY R. ) 

CHRISTENSEN, HOLME, ROBERTS & ) 

OWEN, INC., BRENT V. MANNING, ) 

and INSURANCE BY NORTH ) 

AMERICA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

JUN 6 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-4098 

(D.C. No. 89-C-943-B) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-4098 Document: 010110118819 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
, 

' 

Plaintiff-appellant Stanley C. Mann appeals prose from the 

dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. § 1983 action against former and 

present members of the Utah state judiciary (judges), lawyers and 

law firms involved in prior state court proceedings and the 

insurance carrier for one of the firms (private defendants). Mann 

contends that the judges and private defendants violated his civil 

rights during the course of various litigated matters concerning 

the custody and maintenance of David Wheeler, the adopted son of 

Mann's deceased niece. On motions to dismiss, the district court 

held that: (1) it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions by 

state courts; (2) the judges were immune from suit under§ 1983; 

(3) the private defendants were not subject to suit under§ 1983 

given a lack of state action; and (4) Mann's action was timebarred. The district court dismissed those portions of 

plaintiff's complaint which sought review of state court decisions 

and granted the motions to dismiss filed by the judges and private 

defendants. On appeal, Mann takes issue with each holding. We 

affirm. 

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal 

construing Mann's prose pleadings liberally as required under 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1971). Mann's§ 1983 

action seeks federal court review of particular applications of 

law by the Utah state courts. Plainly, the federal district court 

was without jurisdiction to perform such a task, which is reserved 

to the Supreme Court. See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4098 Document: 010110118819 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 296 (1970); Van Sickle 

v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir. 1986). The allegedly 

unconstitutional conduct of the judges involves action within 

their jurisdiction; consequently, they are absolutely immune from 

suit under§ 1983. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 

(1978); Van Sickle, 791 F.2d at 1434-35. Mann's complaint failed 

to present specific facts beyond conclusory allegations tending to 

show agreement and concerted action between the private defendants 

and state actors; consequently the private defendants were not 

acting under color of state law and may not be held liable under 

§ 1983. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 

(1970); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th 

Cir. 1983); Schaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 1259, 1260-61 (10th Cir. 

1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981). In light of our 

resolution of the above issues, we need not consider whether 

Mann's action was time-barred. 1 

1 The district court determined that because the relevant 

allegations contained in Mann's 120-page complaint fell outside 

the two-year limitation period under current Utah law, Utah Code. 

Ann.§ 78-12-28(3) (1987), his action was time-barred. See Wilson 

v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 279-80 (1985) (state law determines 

applicable limitation period under§ 1983). Mann's complaint was 

filed October 18, 1989, but contains allegations occurring when 

the limitation period was four years. 

On April 27, 1987, the two-year limitation period took effect. 

Under Utah law, the new limitation period is a procedural change 

which applies even though it shortens the allowable period for 

preexisting claims, provided the shortened period allows a 

plaintiff a reasonable time in which to bring an action. 

Greenhalgh v. Payson City, 530 P.2d 799, 803 (Utah 1975); Day & 

Night Heating Co. v. Ruff, 432 P.2d 43, 44 (Utah 1967). See also 

Pfeiffer v. Hartford Ins. Co., 929 F.2d 1484, 1493 n.10 (10th Cir. 

1991) (discussing change in Colorado limitation statute). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4098 Document: 010110118819 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3 
\ Thus, we agree with the district court's dismissal of the 

complaint against the judges and private defendants. Mann v. 

Rigtrup, No. 89-C-943-B, unpub. order (D. Utah May 23, 1990). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4098 Document: 010110118819 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 4