Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01913/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01913-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denver National Bank
Appellee
Carolyn D. Fleming
Appellant
Jack E. Fleming
Appellant
William Huston
Appellee
Law Firm of Huston & Woodhouse
Appellee
William Rhodes
Appellee
D. Richard Toth
Appellee
Donald Woodhouse
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unit.eel St.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JACK E. FLEMING; CAROLYN D. FLEMING, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v . 

WILLIAM RHODES; D. RICHARD TOTH; 

WILLIAM HUSTON; DONALD WOODHOUSE; LAW 

FIRM OF HUSTON & WOODHOUSE; DENVER 

NATIONAL BANK, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

MAR O 71989 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 88-1913 

) (D.C. No. 88-C-487) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

J udge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 88-1913 Document: 010110024547 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 1 
Plaintiffs commenced this . action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional 

rights during the course of a state court proceeding. Defendant 

Denver National Bank, represented by defendants Huston and 

Woodhouse, commenced an action in Colorado state court alleging 

plaintiffs defaulted on a promissory note owned by the bank. 

Defendants Rhodes and Toth were the state court judges presiding 

over this proceeding. The state court granted summary judgment in 

favor of Denver National Bank. 

In their federal complaint, plaintiffs asserted seven § 1983 

claims for relief arising from the state court proceeding: 1) 

defendants denied plaintiffs due process by granting Denver 

National Bank summary judgment without providing plaintiffs an 

opportunity for oral argument; 2) defendants conspired to deny 

plaintiffs due process by denying plaintiffs an opportunity to 

proceed to trial; 3) defendants conspired to deny plaintiffs 

access to the courts by granting summary judgment in favor of 

Denver National Bank and vacating a previously set trial date; 4) 

defendant Rhodes was grossly negligent in granting summary 

judgment; 5) defendant Rhodes denied plaintiffs equal protection 

of the laws by granting summary judgment; 6) defendant Rhodes 

abused judicial process by granting 

defendant Toth violated plaintiffs' 

summary judgment; and 

constitutional rights 

7) 

by 

denying plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment made pursuant 

to Colo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). As relief, plaintiffs sought 

declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1913 Document: 010110024547 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 2 
The district court dismissed plaintiffs' § 1983 claims 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction and awarded defendants attorney's fees. Plaintiffs 

filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court 

denied. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their § 1983 claims 

and the district court's award of attorney's fees. 

A federal district court does not have authority to review a 

state court judgment where, as in this action, the relief sought 

is in the nature of appellate review. Anderson v. Colorado, 793 

F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986), Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 

1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1986); see District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The district court 

order dismissing plaintiffs' claims is affirmed. 

On appeal, plaintiffs also argue the district court erred in 

awarding defendants attorney's fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 

and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. This court will not reverse a district 

court's imposition of sanctions unless it appears 

court abused its discretion. Adamson v. Bowen, 

the district 

855 F.2d 668, 

672-73 (10th Cir. 1988); Autorama Corp. v. Stewart, 802 F.2d 1284, 

1288 (10th Cir. 1986). Review of the district court record 

indicates the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

imposing sanctions against plaintiffs for filing a frivolous 

action. 

Defendants also moved for sanctions on appeal. 

have had an opportunity to respond to this request. 

3 

Plaintiffs 

Appellate Case: 88-1913 Document: 010110024547 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 3 
• 

Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on ... litigants ... in order to regulate 

their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter 

frivolous filings. See,~, Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 ... (1980); Link v. Wabash 

R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 ... (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 

99 U.S. (9 Otto) 607 ... (1878). In addition, 

Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 u.s.c. S 1912 provide that a 

court of appeals may award just damages and single or 

double costs if the court "determine[s] that an appeal 

is frivolous" or brought for purposes of delay. This 

court has imposed attorney's fees and double costs for 

the taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, 

~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, ~4 

(10th Cir. 1980). 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1986); 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 893, 894-95 (10th Cir. 1986). 

In light of plaintiffs' legally frivolous appeal, an award of 

damages and double costs is justified. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the 

district court to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded 

for taking a legally frivolous appeal. The district court may 

look to the principles that have evolved in the interpretation of 

Rule 11 in assessing the amount of the sanction awarded pursuant 

to Rule 38 and S 1912. See Atkinson v. O'Neill, F.2d , 

No. 88-1132, slip. op. at 4-5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989); 

Mullen v. Household Bank-Federal Sav. Bank, F.2d 

No. 87-1335, slip. op. at 5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1913 Document: 010110024547 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 4