Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02030/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02030-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sue Dewalt
Appellee
James E. McClendon
Appellant
Leslie Skinner
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

, FILED 

Uoited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cim1it 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Sf p 2 9 1989 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

JAMES E. MCCLENDON, 

Plaintiff/Appellant, 

v. 

SUE DEWALT, State Police 

Officer; and LESLIE SKINNER, 

Assistant District Attorney, 

Defendants/Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 89-2030 

(D. New Mexico} 

(D.C. No. 88-996 SC} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, 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. 

Plaintiff-appellant James E. Mcclendon filed a complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sue DeWalt of the New Mexico State 

Police, Leslie Skinner, a New Mexico Assistant District Attorney, 

and Lieutenant James E. Casper of the Angelina County (Texas) 

* 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: 89-2030 Document: 01019974031 Date Filed: 09/29/1989 Page: 1 
t 

Sheriff's Office, alleging that he was arrested and incarcerated 

in violation of his constitutional rights. This appeal concerns 

only Lt. Casper. The United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico dismissed the action against Casper on the 

grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. We 

affirm the judgment. 

Lieutenant Casper arrested Mcclendon, for whom a New Mexico 

arrest warrant had been issued and transmitted via teletype, in 

Lufkin, Texas. Mcclendon was held in Texas until his extradition 

to New Mexico was arranged. Casper did not transport him. 

Furthermore, according to Casper's sworn, uncontradicted affidavit, R. Vol. I. at 13, Casper does not own property or 

transact business in New Mexico, he is not a citizen of New 

Mexico, and at no time relevant to this action did he even enter 

New Mexico. 

Following his conviction, McClendon initiated his civil 

rights action on August 23, 1988. Casper's counsel made an appearance on October 5, accompanied by a motion for an extension of 

the time to plead from October 6 to October 14, which was granted. 

On October 14, Casper filed a motion to dismiss the action against 

him due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, which ultimately was 

granted on January 12, 1989. 

Mcclendon, unaware of these filings, 1 filed an affidavit and 

request for entry of default on October 17, which stated that 

1 The parties differ over whose fault this was. Mcclendon 

points out that Casper's counsel did not send him a copy of the 

motion to dismiss until October 20. Counsel acknowledges this, 

but notes that Mcclendon did not check with the court clerk before 

requesting the default to see if anything had been filed. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2030 Document: 01019974031 Date Filed: 09/29/1989 Page: 2 
r 

Casper had failed to make any appearance in the case. In reliance 

thereon, the court clerk erroneously filed an entry of default on 

October 27. The district court, however, continued to accept 

pleadings from Casper until it eventually dismissed the action 

against him. 

Mcclendon argues on appeal that the district court had 

juri sdiction over Casper, and that the entry of default should be 

enforced. We reject both contentions. 

I. 

A district court hearing a case brought under§ 1983 must, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), look to the 

long-arm statute of the state in which it sits to determine the 

scope of its personal jurisdiction. Webber v. Michela, 633 F.2d 

518, 519 (8th Cir. 1980); see Omni Capital Intern. v. Rudolf Wolff 

& Co., 108 S. Ct. 404 (1987). 

The New Mexico long-arm statute provides for jurisdiction 

over a non-resident defendant in a cause of action which arose 

from that person doing any of the following: 

(1) transacting business in the state 

(2) operating a motor vehicle on the highways of the state 

(3) committing a tortious act within the state 

(4) contracting to insure people or property in the state. 

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 38-l-16(A) (1987). 

New Mexico courts use a two-step analysis to determine if 

they have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. 

First, the long-arm statute must apply. Then, there must be 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2030 Document: 01019974031 Date Filed: 09/29/1989 Page: 3 
sufficient contacts between the defendant and New Mexico to 

satisfy the requirements of due process. Roberts v. Piper 

Aircraft Corp., 670 P.2d 974, 976-77 (N.M. App. 1983). Because 

Casper clearly did not perform any of the enumerated acts, the 

long-arm statute does not apply. We need not reach the due 

process question. 

II. 

"It has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a 

personal obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be 

entered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the 

defendant." Kulko v. Superior Court in and for San Francisco, 436 

U.S. 84, 91 (1978). Conversely, "[a] personal judgment entered 

without jurisdiction over the person violates due process and is 

void." West v. Capitol Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n, 558 F.2d 977, 

980 (10th Cir. 1977). Because the district court lacked personal 

jurisdiction, the entry of default entered against Casper is a 

nullity. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2030 Document: 01019974031 Date Filed: 09/29/1989 Page: 4