Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02686/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Fritzen
Appellee
Sharon L. Kinnison
Appellee
Suzanne H. Lewis
Appellee
Country Joseph Stevens
Appellant

Document Text:

./ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

COUNTRY JOSEPH STEVENS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

OCT 10 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

SHARON L. KINNISON, DONALD 

FRITZEN, SUZANNE H. LEWIS, 

JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, 

No. 87-2686 

(D.C. No. C87-0184K) 

(D. Wyoming) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the cause is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary 

judgment to defendants in plaintiff's action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff's complaint alleged, in substance, that 

defendants violated his First, Eighth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth 

* 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: 87-2686 Document: 01019974309 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 1 
J 

' 

Amendment rights by illegally abducting him from Colorado and 

holding him against his will in Wyoming for the purpose of 

prosecuting him on Wyoming criminal charges. On appeal, plaintiff 

argues that the district court "misread the contents and [has] 

failed to adhear [sic] to the rules and the Interstate Agreement 

of Detainers as a matter of Federal Law and [has] granted the 

malicious Prosecution by the prosecutor for the state of Wyoming 

and [has] failed to accept [plaintiff's] request for a fast and 

speedy trial, under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution." 

(Pl. Br. at 2.) Plaintiff further contends that the Wyoming 

criminal charges, which a Wyoming state court eventually dismissed 

without prejudice, should have been dismissed with prejudice. 

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims 

against Judge Kinnison and Prosecutor Lewis because the plaintiff 

requested that they be dropped1 . Plaintiff conceded that they 

had absolute immunity for their actions. Although the judge and 

prosecutor do have absolute immunity from a damage claim, they 

would not, of course, be immune from injunctive relief and 

attendant attorney's fees in a section 1983 action brought to 

compel dismissal with prejudice under the act. Pulliam v. Allen, 

466 U.S. 522 (1984). Because plaintiff voluntarily dismissed 

1 Plaintiff conceded that defendants Kinnison and Lewis were 

immune from suit and dropped them from the suit. See,~' 

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants Kinnison and Fritzen's Answer of 

Complaint, filed June 8, 1987 at 2 (''Plaintiff has amended this 

complaint excluding Sharon L. Kinnison and agrees this defendant 

is absolutely immune from suit."); Plaintiff's Response To 

Defendant's Answer, filed June 15, 1987 at 1-2 ("Plaintiff ... 

agrees that Defendant Suzanne H. Lewis is absolutely immune from 

suit. The plaintiff would request that ... Suzanne H. 

Lewis be removed as a defendant."). 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 87-2686 Document: 01019974309 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 2 
' 

those two defendants, we need not address that issue. It can now 

only be addressed, if at all, if Wyoming seeks to prosecute 

defendant on the charges it erroneously dismissed without 

prejudice. 

With regard to plaintiff's claim that Sheriff Fritzen and the 

two John Doe defendants illegally abducted him from Colorado, we 

hold that the district court properly awarded summary judgment in 

those defendants' favor for substantially the reasons stated in 

the district court's October 8, 1987 Order. Plaintiff voluntarily 

consented to being transported to Wyoming by signing the Prisoner 

Request For Final Disposition Of Detainer on October 23, 1986. 

As for plaintiff's contention that the Wyoming state court 

should have dismissed the Wyoming charges against him with 

prejudice rather than without prejudice, we conclude that Sheriff 

Fritzen and the two John Doe defendants were not responsible for 

the state court's decision and thus cannot be liable under 42 

u.s.c. § 1983 for the state court's error. We agree that the 

Interstate Agreement on Detainers "is a congressionally sanctioned 

interstate compact the interpretation of which presents a question 

of federal law.'' Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 442 (1981). 2 We 

also agree that the Wyoming charges should have been dismissed 

with prejudice under the plain language of the statute because 

plaintiff was returned to Colorado without trial on the Wyoming 

2 See also,~, Bush v. Muncy, 659 F.2d 402, 406 (4th Cir. 

1981) ("[B]ecause the IAD is a compact among the states sanctioned 

by Congress ... it is a federal law whose violation may be 

remedied under section 1983"), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 (1982). 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 87-2686 Document: 01019974309 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 3 
charges. 18 U.S.C.A. App. § 2, arts. III(d}, IV(e), and V(c}. 3 

However, Sheriff Fritzen had nothing to do with the state court's 

decision to dismiss the Wyoming charges without prejudice and, 

hence, he cannot be liable for monetary or injunctive relief under 

Section 1983. 

We express no opinion as to whether, in the event that 

Wyoming ever attempts to prosecute plaintiff for the Wyoming 

charges, plaintiff can reassert the erroneous nature of the state 

court's dismissal, or whether plaintiff's failure to appeal the 

state court's dismissal to the Wyoming Supreme Court has any 

preclusive effect. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

3 See,~, United States v. Schrum, 638 F.2d 214, 215 (10th 

Cir. 1981} (adopting district court's opinion, 504 F. Supp. 23 

(D. Kan. 1980}; 134 Cong. Rec. 7451, 11254 (1988} (discussing 

legislative history of Pub. L. 100-690, which amended the IAD, 18 

U.S.C.A. App. § 9, to provide that court has power to dismiss 

indictments without prejudice when the United States is the 

"receiving State"}. 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 87-2686 Document: 01019974309 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 4