Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02100/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Wilson Martin
Appellee
Judy Leigh McMillen
Appellant
James A. Roggow
Appellee

Document Text:

' FILED 

United Statc:5 Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cirruit 

JUDY LEIGH McMILLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

R. WILSON MARTIN and JAMES 

A. ROGGOW, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JAN 3 0 1991 

R.OBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2100 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-591-JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting 

defendants-appellees R •. Wilson Martin and James Roggow's motion to 

dismiss this case brought pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983 and denying 

plaintiff-appellant Judy McMillen's motion to amend her complaint. 

We affirm. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2100 Document: 010110083584 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 1 
J 

McMillen was the mortgagor-defendant in a state court 

proceeding brought by Roggow on behalf of his client, Martin, 

trustee of the mortgagee. Default judgment was entered against 

McMillen in this proceeding. The mortgagee was the highest bidder 

at the foreclosure sale. A special master's deed was issued to 

the mortgagee after the sale was approved by the state court. 

McMillen assigned her right of redemption after the foreclosure 

sale to a third party, Gilles DeLisle. The state court ruled 

DeLisle's attempt to redeem the property was untimely. The New 

Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. 

McMillen filed this section 1983 action against Martin and 

Roggow, arguing her civil rights were violated when she and her 

possessions were removed from the foreclosed property by a writ of 

assistance issued by the state district court. No government 

officials were named as parties in this action. In her complaint, 

however, McMillen alleges Martin and Roggow acted jointly with the 

district court under color of state law to deprive McMillen of her 

property without due process of law. She asserts Martin and 

Roggow, aided by the deputy court clerk and the sheriff, obtained 

the writ of assistance in a manner contrary to the laws of New 

Mexico. 

We review the sufficiency of a complaint de novo. Morgan Y.:... 

City of Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). Dismissal of 

a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 

requires the legal determination that the plaintiff can prove no 

set of facts entitling him to relief. Id. To overcome Martin and 

Roggow's motion to dismiss, McMillen must show defendants were 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2100 Document: 010110083584 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 2 
acting under color of state law. See Adickes Y.!.. ~ !L.. Kress~ 

Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150 (1970). 

Martin and Roggow are both private parties. They are 

presumed not to be state actors unless McMillen's complaint 

specifically alleges Martin and Roggow conspired with a state 

official to deprive McMillen of her constitutional rights. See 

Norton Y.!.. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375, 1380 (10th Cir. 1980). The 

conclusory allegations in this complaint related to joint 

activities with state actors are insufficient to state a claim 

under section 1983. See Sooner Products Y.!.. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 

512 (10th Cir. 1983). 

Even if McMillen had been allowed to amend her complaint to 

add the charge of bias on the part of the state judge, that claim 

would not have been sufficient to show Martin and Roggow were 

acting under color of state law. The district court therefore did 

not err in refusing to permit McMillen to amend her complaint. 

See Foman Y.!.. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). We AFFIRM for 

substantially the reasons given by the district court. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2100 Document: 010110083584 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 3