Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03269/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Clements
Appellee
State of Kansas
Appellee
Robert Waterbury
Appellant

Document Text:

J l L~LJ 

u n1.ro Stat~:: Co11rt of App~b 'f--, t~ C i,•~ui~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 10 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk ROBERT WATERBURY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STATE OF KANSAS; WILLIAM CLEMENTS, ) 

8th Judicial District, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-3269 

(D.C. No. 91-CIV-3211) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In this appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 

action under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1988), Robert Waterbury seeks a new 

trial in a state court civil damage suit and damages for the 

injustice he believes he has suffered in the Kansas state courts. 

He sues the state of Kansas and one of its judges, arguing that he 

*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: 91-3269 Document: 010110240418 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
was not offered the opportunity to be heard by a jury of his 

peers. He did not seek direct review of the state court decision. 

Instead, he brought this collateral challenge which the district 

court dismissed. Mr. Waterbury appealed that dismissal to this 

court, and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Like the district court, we hold that the state judge is 

shielded from liability by the doctrine of judicial immunity. 

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S . 349, 355-56 (1978). Apparently 

recognizing the strength of the shield erected by that doctrine, 

Mr. Waterbury argues on appeal that: "I am not contending that the 

Judge is responsible. The state has responsibility because the 

Judge was acting in the state's behalf." Appellant's Opening 

Brief at 3 . Like the judge, however, the state is immune from 

this suit. As against the state of Kansas, Mr . Waterbury's damage 

action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. U.S . Const. amend. 

XI; ~ Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890). This court has 

previously decided that the Eleventh Amendment may be raised sua 

sponte. Esparza v. Valdez, 862 F.2d 788 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. 

denied, 492 U.S. 905 (1989). 

In his brief, Mr. Waterbury essentially requests that this 

court undo the decision of the Kansas state court. Section 1983's 

avai lability does not permit litigants to choose the forum in 

which they seek appellate review of state court decisions, even if 

there is a federal constitutional question presented. "Where a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3269 Document: 010110240418 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
constitutional issue could have been reviewed on direct appeal by 

the state appellate courts, a litigant may not seek to reverse or 

modify the state court judgment by bringing a constitutional claim 

under 42 u.s.c. § 1983." Anderson v. State of Colorado, 793 F.2d 

262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986). Again, Mr. Waterbury's action is 

barred. 

Thus, while we GRANT Mr. Waterbury's motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3269 Document: 010110240418 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3