Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05230/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Holt
Appellee
Marilyn Newman
Appellee
Thomas R. Sligar
Appellant

Document Text:

• 

t 

UNITED STATES 

FIL~u 

United State& ~rt 1 Appeals COURT OF APPEALS Tenth CtrcuI 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY G 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

THOMAS R. SLIGAR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JACK HOLT, MARILYN NEWMAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 92-5230 

(D.C. No. 92-C-780-B) 

(N. Dist. of Okla.) 

ORDER AND JODGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Thomas R. Sligar (Sligar), appearing prose, appeals from the 

district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

against defendants-appellees, Jack Holt and Marilyn Newman, two 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5230 Document: 010110110055 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 1 
jurors who served on the jury which convicted Sligar in an 

Oklahoma state district court proceeding. Sligar is incarcerated 

in the Dick Conner Correctional Center at Hominy, Oklahoma. 

Sligar contends that the defendants, as jurors, violated his 

due process and equal protection of laws rights because (a) his 

trial attorney informed the jury that the state had lost 

jurisdiction over the subject matter by not arraigning him within 

the statutory time limit, and (b) the defendants- jurors 

disregarded Sligar's attorney's pleas and knowingly conspired to 

violate Sligar's rights by convicting him with only the testimony 

of police officers for allegedly kicking a witness. Sligar sought 

monetary relief of $25,000,000 from each defendant as damages for 

his pain and suffering from illegal imprisonment. 

On appeal, Sligar argues that: the defendants violated his 

constitutionally protected rights of due process and equal 

protection of the laws; the district court violated his right to a 

jury trial, citing to Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co., 831 F.2d 1440 

(9th Cir. 1987), and related cases; and, the district court 

applied the wrong law, citing to Hill v. McDermott, Inc., 827 F.2d 

1040 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). He 

requests that we reverse and remand for trial. 

The district court dismissed Sligar's complaint on the ground 

that jurors are entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit, 

citing Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 422-23 (1976). We agree. 

See also, Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1988); 

McIntosh v. Garofalo, 367 F. Supp. 501 (W.D. Pa. 1973). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5230 Document: 010110110055 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 2 
t 

Neither Etalook nor Hill, cited and relied upon by Sligar, 

has any bearing upon the absolute immunity issue relied upon by 

the district court. 

We AFFIRM. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5230 Document: 010110110055 Date Filed: 05/06/1993 Page: 3