Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03315/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Kansas City, Kansas
Appellee
Louis Johnson
Appellee
Darrell Marmon
Appellee
Allan Meyers
Appellee
Ronald L. Miller
Appellee
Randall Murphy
Appellee
Philip Ortega
Appellant
Bernard J. Smith
Appellee
Joseph Ward
Appellee

Document Text:

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United Sta~ C.nr\ ot Appeals 

Tr>!!th r.fr,-nit 

PHILIP ORTEGA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, a 

Municipal Corporation; ALLAN 

MEYERS, Police Chief; RANDALL 

MURPHY, Detective; RONALD L. 

MILLER, Lt.; LOUIS JOHNSON, 

Detective; JOSEPH WARD, 

Patrolman; DARRELL MARMON, 

Patrolman; BERNARD J. SMITH, 

Patrolman, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 1 31991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3315 

(D.C. No. 85-2054) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN,** 

District Judge. 

Philip Ortega appeals the district court's refusal to award 

him attorney's fees as a prevailing party pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 

1988 (1988). The history of this litigation is set out in our 

prior opinion in this case. See Ortega v. City of Kansas City. 

*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. 

** Honorable A. Sherman Christensen, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-3315 Document: 010110099966 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 1 
875 F.2d 1497 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 s. Ct. 325 (1989). 

·The facts pertinent to the instant appeal are briefly as follows. 

Ortega brought suit under 42 u.s.c. S 1983 (1988) asserting 

constitutional claims arising from his erroneous arrest during a 

sting operation as a result of being mistaken for the Philip 

Ortega named in the arrest warrant. The district court directed a 

verdict against Ortega on all claims except the one alleging 

deprivation of his extradition rights. Following a jury verdict 

for Ortega on the extradition claim, the court awarded him 

attorney's fees under section 1988. Defendants appealed. Ortega 

did not appeal the directed verdicts entered on his claims, 

raising on cross-appeal only the amount of attorneys fees awarded. 

We reversed the jury verdict for Ortega on the extradition claim, 

holding that "a criminal suspect has no pre-arrest extradition 

rights, the violation of which give rise to a cause of action 

under 42 u.s.c. S 1983." 875 F.2d at 1499. 

On remand, Ortega sought attorney's fees under section 1988 

incurred in connection with obtaining an order expunging his 

criminal arrest record. The district court denied a fee award, 

pointing out that all of Ortega's original constitutional claims 

had failed and expressing doubt that expunction was itself a 

constitutional right so as to support an award of fees under 

section 1988. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3315 Document: 010110099966 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 2 
J 

Section 1988 empowers a court to award a prevailing party a 

reasonable attorney's fee in any action to enforce section 1983. 

Section 1983 in turn provides a remedy for the deprivation of 

rights secured by the Constitution and federal law. See Carey v. 

Continental Airlines, Inc., 823 F.2d 1402, 1404 (10th Cir. 1987). 

In this case, Ortega's constitutional claims were resolved 

adversely to him either on appeal or by a directed verdict which 

he did not appeal. Moreover, no federal statute governs 

expunction under the circumstances of .this case. While courts 

have the power to grant expunction as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct, see generally United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 

925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975), when, as 

here, no constitutional violation has been established, expunction 

itself is not a constitutional right, see Eutzy v. Tesar, 880 F.2d 

1010, 1011 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Bird v. Summit County, 

730 F.2d 442, 444 (6th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Duke v. White, 616 

F.2d 955, 956 (6th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also Paul v. 

Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 700-701 (1976) (public disclosure of arrest 

does not result in deprivation of constitutional right). 

Accordingly, Ortega has not prevailed on a constitutional or 

federal statutory claim under section 1983, and he is thus not 

entitled to an award of attorney's fees under section 1988. 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3315 Document: 010110099966 Date Filed: 02/13/1991 Page: 3