Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03111/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03111-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. T. Garner
Appellant
Thomas M. Tuggle
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG O G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKE 

J. T. GARNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

THOMAS M. TUGGLE, Washington 

County District Judge, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk .~ .. -~ 

No. 92-3111 

(D. Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 92-3026-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff J. T. Garner's 

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

or fees. In order to succeed on that motion, Mr. Garner must show 

both: (1) a financial inability to pay the required filing fees, 

* 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: 92-3111 Document: 010110276687 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 1
and (2) the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the 

law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); 

Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). See also Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). 

Garner sued Judge Thomas M. Tuggle, a district judge of 

Washington County, Kansas, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

nature of Garner's complaint is somewhat murky. He charges that 

Judge Tuggle violated Garner's due process rights by ordering the 

sealing of certain records and by entering an order enjoining 

Garner from filing any further pleadings related to that matter. 

He asserts that Judge Tuggle exceeded his authority in issuing 

such a ruling, and that he did so out of malice. The orders 

relate to probate proceedings involving realty and other property 

belonging to Frederick Iwert. Garner is imprisoned, among other 

reasons, for the felony murder of Iwert. Garner sought $3.1 

million in damages, as well as a declaratory judgment that Judge 

Tuggle was not immune from suit and that Garner's constitutional 

rights had been violated. 

The district court dismissed the action finding that Judge 

Tuggle was absolutely immune from liability in the§ 1983 civil 

rights complaint. Order of Jan. 24, 1992 at 1. "A judge acting 

in his judicial capacity is absolutely immune from civil rights 

suits unless the judge acts clearly without any colorable claim of 

jurisdiction." Snell v. Turner, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 

1990), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 1622 (1991). See also Stump v. 

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Mee v. Ortega, No. 90-1288, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3111 Document: 010110276687 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 2
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 13892 at *7 (10th Cir. June 18, 1992). That 

immunity does not dissolve when the judge is accused of acting 

maliciously or corruptly. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 

(1967); Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1473 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 559 (1990). 

Garner's own actions undermine his assertion that Judge 

Tuggle acted without any jurisdiction. Garner admits that he 

filed a Motion for Recusal attempting to prevent Judge Tuggle's 

further involvement in the case. Complaint at 7-8, ,16. 

In resolving Garner's requested declaratory relief, we have 

consistently held that "conclusory allegations without supporting 

factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which 

relief can be based." Hall v. Bellmen, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th 

Cir. 1991) (citing cases). "[A] prose plaintiff requires no 

special legal training to recount the facts surrounding his 

alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court is to 

determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be 

granted." Id. We agree with the district court that Garner has 

failed to state facts which would support a cause of action under 

§ 1983. 

Because Garner's argument on appeal lacks any rational basis, 

his motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or 

fees is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3111 Document: 010110276687 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 3