Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06258/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06258-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doug Friesen
Appellee
Russell Hall
Appellee
Ronald M. Shaw
Appellee
Michael C. Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F l L J ' United States Co} ·,. (!f Appea:· 

MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Tenth C1:-1.~,11t 

MARO l 199j 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-6258 

(W.D. Okla., No. 91-CV- 1084 ) 

RUSSELL HALL, Judge; DOUG 

FRIESEN, Attorney; RONALD M. 

SHAW, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge . ** 

This suit for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1983 and 1985 (3) arises from an Oklahoma state court proceeding 

* 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 . 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiall y 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed . R. App. P. 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. There fore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 1 
to declare the daughter of the plaintiff-appellant, Michael 

Washington, "deprived" as to her mother under Okla. Stat. Ann. 

tit. 10, § 1101. Washington, who is incarcerated at the Oklahoma 

State Penitentiary, brought this suit prose against Doug Friesen, 

his court-appointed attorney; Russell Hall, an Oklahoma juvenile 

court judge; and Ronald Shaw, an Oklahoma County juvenile intake 

officer. He contended that the defendants deprived him of his 

constitutional rights by granting custody of his daughter to her 

maternal grandmother without his consent and without permitting 

him to attend the deprivation hearings. He also asserted that his 

appointed counsel was constitutionally ineffective. As a remedy, 

Washington sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the defendants' 

acts infringed upon his constitutional rights, (2 ) an injunction 

enjoining "further like behavior and unconstitutional practice," 

(3 ) $100,000 in damages from each defendant, and (4) a jury trial. 

Tab 2 at 5. 

The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, 

who recommended that Washington's claims for damages against the 

judge be dismissed on the ground of judicial immunity and that 

Washington's request for an injunction be denied under the 

abstention doctrine of Younger v . Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) . The 

magistrate also recommended granting summary judgment on 

Washington ' s conspiracy claims in favor of the remaining two 

defendants on the ground that Washington's claims of conspiracy 

were unsupported by factual allegations. Finally, the magistrate 

recommended that the court dismiss Washington's ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims on the ground that he had no 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 2 
constitutional right to counsel in the deprivation proceedings, 

and that the provision of ineffective assistance--assuming that it 

was ineffective--therefore did not violation the Constitution. 

The district court agreed with the magistrate , and dismissed 

the complaint against Friesen and Shaw under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56 and the complaint against Judge Hall under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 191S(d) as frivolous. The court also denied injunctive relief 

under Younger . 

Washington now appeals the dismissal of his complaint, 

contending that the district court erred in referring the case to 

a magistrate judge and in adopting the magistrate's findings and 

conclusions. He further asserts that the magistrate judge should 

have held an evidentiary hearing prior to entering findings and 

conclusions. Because we believe that the case was properly 

referred to the magistrate and because no evidentiary hearing was 

necessary to decide the issues, we affirm the district court. 

I. REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Washington first contends that the district court erred in 

referring his case to a magistrate judge. Washington argues that 

because his complaint did not challenge a condition of 

confinement, reference to the magistrate was not authorized by 

28 U.S . C. § 636(b) (1) (B). Regardless of whether Washington's 

petition challenges a conditi on of confinement, reference of his 

case was clearly permissible under§ 636(b) (1) (B ) , which provides 

another ground for reference to a magistrate. Under 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 3 
§ 636(b) (1 ) (B) , a district court may designate a magistrate to 

conduct evidentiary hearings on and to submit proposed findings of 

facts and recommendations for the disposition of motions excluded 

in§ 636 (b ) (1) (A) . Among the motions excluded in§ 636(b) (1 ) (A) 

are "motion[s] . for summary judgment . .. and to 

involuntarily dismiss an action." In Washington's case, all three 

defendants submitted motions to dismiss the case, and in addition, 

Shaw and Friesen moved for summary judgment. Docs. 11, 13, 17, 

19, 35, 36, 37. The district court's designation of a magistrate 

to make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law was 

therefore proper. Because the district court's order dismissing 

all of Washington's claims [Doc . 49] and its order denying 

Washington relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) (4) [Doc. 52] show that the district court 

independently reviewed the record before adopting the magistrate's 

recommendations, we find no error in the court's reference of the 

case to the magistrate. 

II. MAGISTRATE'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING 

Washington also contends that the magistrate should have held 

an evidentiary hearing prior to recommending the dismissal of his 

case, and that the district court therefore erred in adopting the 

magistrate's findings of fact and recommendations. We disagree. 

An evidentiary hearing is not required in every case before 

the district court can enter summary judgment. Kennedy v. 

Meacham, 540 F.2d 1057, 1061 (10th Cir. 1976). "A well-developed 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 4 
showing by affidavits, exhibits, regulations and the responses to 

them might demonstrate, without factual dispute, such limited 

actions by defendants and such a justification for them as t o 

obviate the need for an evidentiary hearing." Id. Of course, in 

such a case the defendants still must carry the heavy burden of 

justifying summary judgment. Id. (citations omitted) . 

Because all of Washington's claims could be decided as a 

matter of law, an evidentiary hearing was unnecessary. In his 

complaint and amended complaint, Washington essentially made six 

allegations: (1 ) that the three defendants conspired in violation 

of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3 ) to deprive Washington of his right to a due 

process hearing before the court granted custody of his daughter 

to her maternal grandmother; [Tab 2 at 3) (2) that the three 

defendants conspired in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 

42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) to deprive Washington of his fundamental right 

to seek custody of his daughter and infringed upon his right to 

equal protection of the laws of the state of Oklahoma; [Tab 2 at 

4) (3) that Judge Hall conspired with Friesen, Washington's court 

appointed attorney, to deprive Washington of his constitutional 

rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) [Tab 28 at 3); (4) that Friesen 

rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; [Tab 2 at 3) (5) that Friesen 

intentionally failed to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

ad testificandum to have Washington brought to the hearing, even 

though Washington had instructed him to do so, thus infringing 

upon Washington's right to a fair and impartial hearing; [Tab 2 at 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 5 
4A] and (6 ) that Friesen intentionally and negligently deprived 

Washington of his civil rights under the Constitution and under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, because Friesen refused to make a motion asking 

the court to place Washington's daughter in Washington's custody 

[Tab 2 at 4A]. Even construing these claims liberally as we must, 

because the plaintiff is proceeding prose, Haines v. Kerner, 4 04 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972), we find that Washington is not entitled to 

relief. 

1. The Conspiracy Counts 

Washington's first three claims allege that Hall, Shaw, and 

Friesen conspired in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to deprive 

Washington of various constitutional rights. 1 In order to prove a 

private conspiracy in violation of§ 1985(3), the plaintiff must 

show, among other things, that "'some racial, or perhaps otherwise 

class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind the 

conspirators' action.'" Bray v . Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 

113 S.Ct. 753, 758 (1993) (quoting Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 

U.S. BB, 102 (1971 )) . However, nowhere does Washington allege 

that Shaw, Hall, and Friesen were motivated by a desire to 

discriminate because of Washington's membership in a particular 

1 We note that in the claim for relief that we have renumbered 

Count 3, Washington also contends that Judge Hall conspired with 

Friesen to deprive him of his constitutional rights under the 

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as 

under§ 1985 (3) [Tab 28 at 3]. Because a conspiracy claim under 

§ 1983 requires the proof of different elements than a conspiracy 

claim under§ 1985 (3) , we will discuss Washington's§ 1983 

conspiracy claim in the next section. 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 6 
race or a particular class. The district court therefore properly 

granted summary judgment on and dismissed Washington's three 

conspiracy claims and his request for monetary and injunctive 

relief, and Washington was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing 

on those claims. 

2 . The§ 1983 Claims 

In his last three counts Washington alleges that Friesen 

violated his right to effective assistance of counsel under the 

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, his right to a fair and impartial 

hearing, and his civil rights generally. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

provides that "[e]very person" who acts "under color of" state law 

to deprive another of constitutional rights shall be liable in a 

suit at law or equity. Although appointed attorneys in state 

criminal proceedings do not act under color of state law in the 

normal course of conducting the defense, Polk County v. Dodson, 

454 U.S. 312, 319 - 324 (1981), they may act under color of state 

law when engaged in a conspiracy with state officials to deprive 

another of federal rights, Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 

(1984) (citing Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28 (1980)). The 

same rule applies here, where Defendant Friesen was appointed to 

represent Washington in a hearing to adjudicate his child as 

deprived under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1101, as to the mother. 

Cf. Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 155 (10th Cir. 1986) 

(applying the reasoning of Polk County to case involving a 

guardian ad litem representing a minor in a state proceeding on a 

petition alleging abuse or neglect). 

- 7 -

=-= ~-=t---- ---------------

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 7 
Washington does allege, albeit in other counts of his 

complaint, that Friesen conspired with Judge Hall, who is clearly 

a state actor. However, Washington makes only conclusory 

allegations of conspiracy unsupported by facts. When a§ 1983 

plaintiff attempts to assert the necessary state action by 

implicating state judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, 

mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments 

are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts 

tending to show agreement and concerted action. Sooner Products 

Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983 ) ; see 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F . 2d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 

1990 ) ; Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1990 ) ; Durre 

v. Dempsey. 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir. 1989); Benavidez v. 

Gunnell, 722 F.2d 615, 618 (10th Cir. 1983). The standard is even 

stricter where the state officials allegedly involved in the 

conspiracy are immune from suit, as is the state court judge here. 

Sooner Products, 708 F.2d at 512. 

The only allegation Washington makes in support of his 

conspiracy theory is that Judge Hall forbade Friesen to file a 

petition for writ of mandamus with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to 

obtain an order mandating that Washington be brought to the 

hearings pertaining to the custody of his daughter. Tab 2 at 4, 

4A; Tab 42 at 7. Judge Hall apparently told Friesen that his 

appointment did not include appellate work. Tab 42 at C. We 

agree with the district court and the magistrate that this 

allegation is insufficient to show a meeting of the minds or 

agreement between Hall and Friesen. Because Washington failed to 

- 8 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 8 
adequately allege a conspiracy between Friesen and a state acto r, 

Friesen remains a private actor not subject to§ 1983 liability. 2 

The district court therefore properly dismissed Washington's 

claims for relief under§ 1983. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

2 By the same token, because Washington inadequately alleged 

facts supporting his claim under Count 3 that Hall and Friesen 

conspired in violation of§ 1983 to deprive him of his Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights, we hold that the district court 

properly dismissed his§ 1983 conspiracy claim without first 

holding a hearing on the matter. 

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 92-6258 Document: 010110176492 Date Filed: 03/01/1993 Page: 10