Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03146/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03146-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL .. . .J u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS'(Jnited States ~rt(!! Appea 1: Tenth C1rcu1t 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEBO 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

WILLIAM ROBSON, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

R & R FUR COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant, 

and 

RI CHARD OLSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-3146 

(D.C . No. 89-2390-0) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, 

District Court for the District 

designation. 

District Judge, United States 

of Wyoming, sitting by 

After examining the briefs a nd appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

* Th is 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: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Appellant Richard Olson appeals the district court's denial 

of his "Motion for the Bond" in which he requested that a bond, 

deposited by plaintiff William Robson in a replevin action, be 

released to appellant or his bankruptcy trustee. The district 

court's order denying appellant's motion was issued April 7, 1992, 

and is the only judgment referred to in his notice of appeal to 

this court. R. Supp. Vol. I, tab 109. 

In 1989, plaintiff initiated a replevin action against the 

defendants in an attempt to reclaim approximately twenty-four 

thousand beaver, raccoon, and mink skins that plaintiff had placed 

with defendants for sale on consignment. Plaintiff filed a motion 

for delivery of the property or, in the alternative, for a 

preliminary injunction, claiming a superior right to possession 

and stating his concern that defendants would remove or conceal 

the skins. Plaintiff's motion for delivery of the property was 

denied, but the district court granted the preliminary injunction, 

prohibiting defendants from taking any action which would 

d epreciate . h 1 f h k' l t e va ue o t es ins. In order to effectuate the 

injunction, the court ordered plaintiff to post bond in the amount 

of $30,000.00 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) .

2 

1 There were approximately fourteen thousand skins known to be 

still in defendants' possession. The district court found that 11 [t]he remaining skins have been stored by defendants at locations 

which defendants are incapable of or unwilling to identify." R. 

Vol. I, tab 36 at 3 . 

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) states: 

(continued on next page) 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 2 
Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the court's denial of 

his motion for delivery of the property, claiming that if the 

court allowed the skins to remain in defendants' possession, there 

was a danger of destruction, damage, or disappearance such that 

plaintiff would be unable to redeem the property if he were 

successful in the replevin action. Defendants failed to file a 

timely response, and the district court granted plaintiff's motion 

for reconsideration, granting plaintiff's replevin motion and 

ordering that plaintiff be given immediate possession of the 

skins. R. Vol. I, tab 51 at 4. 

On May 7, 1990, plaintiff moved for a default judgment and 

discharge of the bond based upon defendants' failure to appear at 

pretrial conferences and to comply with the magistrate judge's 

discovery orders. The district court denied the motion and 

granted defendants thirty days to comply with the magistrate 

judge's discovery orders. On June 1, 1990, defendants filed 

Chapter 7 bankruptcy which stayed the action in the distric t 

court. On February 22, 1991, the bankruptcy court issued an order 

l ifting the automatic stay for the purpose of allowing plaintiff 

to move the court for the release of the bond. R. Vol . I , tab 82 , 

Ex. A. 

(continued from previous page) 

No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall 

issue except upon the giving of security by the 

applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for 

the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred 

or suffered by any party who is found to have been 

wrongfully enjoined or restrained. 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 3 
On August 12, 1991, the district court granted plaintiff's 

renewed motion for default judgment, granting plaintiff all relief 

prayed for in his motion including release of the bond. 3 On 

November 27, 1991, appellant filed his "Motion for the Bond, 114 

denial of which is the subject of this appeal. 

After review of the record and the arguments of the parties, 

we determine that, because the district court entered default 

judgment in favor of plaintiff and released the bond, neither 

appellant nor his bankruptcy estate has any right or entitlement 

to the proceeds of plaintiff's injunction bond. In order to 

prevail in an action to recover on the injunction bond, appellant 

must prove that the injunction was wrongful and that he did have 

the right to engage in the enterprises enjoined. See Edgar v. 

MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 649 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring); see 

generally Adolph Coors Co. v. A & S Wholesalers. Inc., 561 F.2d 

807, 813 (10th Cir. 1977) (as a general rule, absent proof of 

malice, an enjoined party is only entitled to the amount of the 

bond as damages for wrongfully granted injunction). Following a 

3 Defendants' appeal of the default judgment order discharging 

the bond was dismissed by this court for lack of prosecution (No. 

91-3266). Defendants' request that this court reopen that appeal 

was also denied. 

4 Appellant's "Motion for the Bond11 states: 

COMES NOW CARROLL RICHARD OLSON debtor in above 

captioned case nad [sic] moves this case as they have 

been abindoned [sic] to debtor by the HONARABLE [sic] 

DAVID SUTTOR TRUSTEE. THIS being the only question to 

close this case debtor moves for these asselts [sic] to 

be turned over imediately [sic]. 

R. Supp. Vol. I, tab 107. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 4 
determination that damages were suffered, the district court 

exercises its equity powers in deciding whether to award damages 

against the bond and in what amount. Kansas ex rel. Stephan v. 

Adams, 705 F.2d 1267, 1269 (10th Cir. 1983). Because the 

appellant failed to establish that the injunction was wrongfully 

entered, he has not established damages, and the district court 

was correct in concluding that he had no entitlement to the 

proceeds of the bond. 

In addition, appellant argues that the removal of the skins 

from his possession constituted an illegal search and seizure, 

that venue in the District of Kansas is inappropriate, and that 

defendants are the victims of malicious prosecution, false 

imprisonment, libel, slander, and restraint of trade. It is 

fundamental law that an appellate court generally may not address 

issues not considered and ruled on in the district court . Farmers 

I ns. Co. v . Hubbard, 869 F.2d 565, 570 (10th Cir. 1989 ) . 

Appellant has made no showing that these issues were before the 

district court. Therefore, we decline to address these issues on 

appeal. Appellant's numerous unsupported and unsubstantiated 

accusations of collusion and prejudice by the trial judge and 

counsel are without merit. 

Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Response to Appellee 

Brief is DENIED . The judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebe l 

Circuit Judge 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-3146 Document: 010110166240 Date Filed: 02/08/1993 Page: 6