Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01462/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gordon P. Gallagher
Appellee
Lawrence Harris
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GORDON P. GALLAGHER, Judge,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-1462

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02417-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Lawrence Harris, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal 

from the district court’s dismissal of his suit against Magistrate Judge Gordon P.

Gallagher. We deny Mr. Harris’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without

prepayment of fees or costs (IFP status) and dismiss the appeal. 

This appeal began with Mr. Harris’s desire to play semi-professional

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellate Case: 15-1462 Document: 01019561206 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 1 
basketball for the Tulsa 66ers. He filed suit against the Tulsa 66ers in the federal

district court in Colorado. That complaint and action was dismissed without

prejudice for improper venue. Harris v. Tulsa 66ers, No. 14-cv-02765, 2014 WL

5356683 (D. Colo. Oct. 16, 2014). Mr. Harris then filed suit against the district

court because he disagreed with the order of dismissal. The magistrate judge

directed Mr. Harris to pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion and a complaint that

complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 on a court-approved form. The district court

ultimately dismissed that complaint and action without prejudice for failure to

comply with the magistrate judge’s directives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Harris v. United States District Court, No. 14-cv-03153, 2015 WL 109823 (D.

Colo. Jan. 5, 2015).

The present action involves Mr. Harris suing the magistrate judge. Mr.

Harris was granted IFP status, and the district court screened his complaint and

dismissed it with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as frivolous under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Harris v. Gallagher, No. 15-cv-02417 (D. Colo.

Nov. 16, 2015). This suit is barred by absolute judicial immunity. Pierson v.

Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). Judges are immune from 42 U.S.C. § 1983

liability unless the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 (1978). Mr. Harris has not made a rational

argument on the law or the facts to warrant this appeal proceeding further. See

Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852, 854 (10th Cir. 1981). 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 15-1462 Document: 01019561206 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 2 
We DENY the motion for IFP status on appeal and DISMISS the appeal. 

We remind Mr. Harris that he “remains liable for the full amount of the filing

fee.” Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 15-1462 Document: 01019561206 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 3