Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06021/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Charles C. Harris
Appellant
State of Oklahoma
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL~ D 

United States Court of Ap~ Tent!-: c ·,.....ni'" 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 3 0 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerl: 

CHARLES C. HARRIS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE) 

OF OKLAHOMA, Susan B. Loving; ) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Nos . 92-6012 & 92-6021 

(D. C. No. CIV-91-1989-R) 

(W. D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA 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. Charles Harris appeals, prose, from a final district 

court order finding his cause of action frivolous and dismissing 

* 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: 92-6021 Document: 010110246227 Date Filed: 04/30/1992 Page: 1
his complaint. We affirm. 

Mr. Harris was granted leave to file a pro se complaint in 

forma pauperis. This complaint was purportedly filed under 28 

U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act) and asserted Mr. Harris 

was deprived of due process, equal protection, and his Fifth 

Amendment right not to incriminate himself as a result of 

Oklahoma's implied consent statute. Mr. Harris sought $1.4 

million from the Oklahoma Attorney General and asked for an 

injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the statute against Mr. 

Harris. 

The record shows Mr. Harris is serving a ten-year prison 

sentence completely unrelated to this claim. Mr. Harris has 

previously filed two habeas actions concerning issues raised in 

his present complaint and this court adversely decided both. See 

Harris v. Scott, No. 90-6367 (10th Cir. 1991), and Harris v. 

Allen, No. 89-6287 (10th Cir. 1990). In each case we held habeas 

does not lie as Mr. Harris was not in custody pursuant to an 

alcohol related conviction. 

In Mr. Harris's present complaint, Defendant Attorney General 

is sued both individually and "as actor unde r color of state law." 

Mr. Harris alleged no action by defendant beyond that associated 

with her role as state prosecutor. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6021 Document: 010110246227 Date Filed: 04/30/1992 Page: 2
Finding such a cause of action frivolous under Yellen v . 

Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471, 1476 (10th Cir. 1987), the district court 

noted that a complaint is dismissible under§ 1915 where it sets 

out facts plainly demonstrating an affirmative defense. In the 

case before us, the affirmative defense is absolute immunity for 

activities associated with the judicial phase . The district court 

denied injunctive relief finding the Eleventh Amendment bars 

federal courts from entertaining a suit against a state by a 

citizen of the state. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974), 

The district court further reviewed Mr. Harris's history of 

pro se litigation, which is far more extensive than herein 

described, and directed Mr. Harris not to tender further in forma 

pauperis applications seeking relief from convictions entered 

prior to December 31, 1991. 

Mr. Harris appeals pro se and argues only the 

constitutionality of Oklahoma's implied consent statute. Mr. 

Harris misperceives the law. The judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons contained in the 

district court's judgment including the magistrate 

findings and recommendations referred to in the judgment. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

judge's 

Appellate Case: 92-6021 Document: 010110246227 Date Filed: 04/30/1992 Page: 3