Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03427/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Olathe Police Department
Appellee
Dennis Auto Plaza
Appellee
Donald E. Ewing
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~u 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

nited Statet Court of Appeals APPEAL~ Tenth Circuit 

DONALD E. EWING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

DENNIS AUTO PLAZA and CITY OF 

OLATHE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3427 

(D.C. No. 92-3417 DES) 

(D. Kan.) 

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

Plaintiff-appellant Donald E. Ewing appeals the district 

court's dismissal of his claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We 

grant Mr. Ewing leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and 

affirm. 

The district court dismissed Mr. Ewing's claim as one based 

on an indisputably meritless legal theory. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). "It is 

axiomatic that, in order to maintain a civil rights action, the 

'conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right 

* 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: 92-3427 Document: 010110110053 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 1 
[must] be fairly attributable to the state.'" Niehaus v. Kansas 

Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 1986) (quoting Lugar v. 

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). We agree with the 

district court that Mr. Ewing failed to allege this essential 

element of his claim against Defendant-appellee Dennis Auto Plaza. 

With respect to Defendant-appellee City of Olathe Police 

Department, the district court noted that "plaintiff claims the 

police officers arrested the wrong person" and found such a claim 

insufficient under§ 1983. We agree. The violated right that 

would allow a§ 1983 claim must be one that is "protected by the 

Constitution." Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979). Even 

if the arresting officers failed to exercise due diligence in 

order to avoid arresting the wrong person, no right protected by 

the Constitution has been violated. Id. See also Hewitt v. City 

of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1985); Glass v. 

Pfeffer, 657 F.2d 252 (10th Cir. 1981). 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3427 Document: 010110110053 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 2