Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05178/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig D. Corgan
Appellee
Steve Gardalla
Appellee
John G. Lanning
Appellee
John L. Washington
Appellant

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

United St.at~ Court of Ap~b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Te"l.t.\i Circui': 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR O 6 1992 

JOHN L. WASHINGTON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STEVE GARDALLA, D.E.A. Detective; ) 

CRAIG D. CORGAN, District Attorney;) 

JOHN G. LANNING, District Judge. ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 91-5178 

(D. C. No. 91-C-167-E) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACBA, 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 . 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Washington appeals the dismissal of his prose 42 u.s.c. 

S 1983 civil action. 

* be 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

for 

res 

Appellate Case: 91-5178 Document: 010110240378 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 1
Mr. Washington filed a pro se complaint§ 1983 complaint 

which is rambling, vague, and filled with conclusions. The thrust 

of the complaint appears to be that the Defendants, a state 

district judge, a district attorney, and a city detective, 

conspired to entrap and maliciously prosecute Mr. Washington 

because of his race. Mr. Washington asked for $20 million as 

punitive damages. Mr. Washington was in jail awaiting trial on 

drug distribution charges at the time he filed his complaint. 

The district court found the state judge and the district 

attorney 

entitled 

were entitled to absolute immunity and the detective was 

to qualified immunity and therefore dismissed Mr. 

Washington's case. 

Mr. Washington appeals pro se the district court's order 

granting the detective's motion to dismiss on the basis of 

qualified immunity. His rambling arguments assert such charges as 

"scandalous means of entrapment," "[l]aw officials clearly abusing 

their discretion," "outrageous misconduct," "the Court's failure 

to give requested entrapment instruction," and "suffering from 

illegal incarceration." What Mr. Washington fails to do is tell 

us why the district judge's decision was erroneous. The district 

court simply held that Mr. Washington failed to show the detective 

deprived Mr. Washington of a federally secured right. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5178 Document: 010110240378 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 2
In the district court, Mr . Washington was given the 

opportunity to respond to Defendant's claim of qualified immunity. 

The paramount thrust of Mr. Washington's suit was racially 

motivated entrapment. To prevail, Mr. Washington had to show the 

deprivation of a federally secured right. The defense of 

entrapment is not constitutionally based, United States v. 

Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 433 (1973), nor does it constitute 

outrageous governmental conduct so as to violate due process, see 

United States v. Warren, 747 F.2d 1339, 1341-43 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Our review of the record shows Mr. Washington has failed to 

establish and identify the violation of a clearly established 

right. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed his case. 

The judgment and decision of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-5178 Document: 010110240378 Date Filed: 04/06/1992 Page: 3