Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06119/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim R. Housley
Appellant
John Wampler
Appellee
Washita County District Court
Appellee

Document Text:

.... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L.i D 

TENTH CIRCUIT United sr~ ~f:u'l{ Appeals 

JIM HOUSLEY, ) 

) 

Petitioner - Appellant, ) 

v. 

LARRY WILLIAMS, and the 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF OKLAHOMA, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents - Appellees. ) 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CHARLES GOODWIN, DENNIS SMITH, ) 

) 

Defendants - Appellees. ) 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

WALDO EMERSON, LUTHER COWAN, ) 

Assistant Attorney General, ) 

) 

Defendants - Appellees. ) 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

LARRY BURROWS, TRIAD DRILLING,) 

JIM NEWMAN, Deputy Sheriff, ) 

LOUIS FLOWERS, Deputy Sheriff,) 

MAR 12 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6110 

(W.D. Okla. No. CIV-92-2080-B) 

No. 92-6189 

(W.D. Okla. No. 91-CV-2084) 

No. 92-6115 

(W.D. Okla. No. CIV-92-207-B) 

No. 92-6113 

(W.D. Okla. No. CIV-92-208-B) 

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 1 
BLUE RIVER CONSTRUCTION 

COMPANY, MONTY SMITH, LUTHER 

COWAN, Assistant District 

Attorney, LOWRY SMITH, LARRY 

WILLIAMS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants - Appellees. ) 

JIM R. HOUSLEY 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner - Appellant, ) 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

WASHITA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, ) 

JOHN WAMPLER, ) 

) 

Respondents - Appellees. ) 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

LARRY SCHREINER, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

JIM R. HOUSLEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

JIM R. HOUSLEY , 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v . 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 92-6119 

(W. D. Okla. No . CIV-92-209-B) 

No . 92 - 6191 

(W. D. Okla. No. 92-CV-428) 

No . 92-6190 

(W.D. Okla . No. 92-CV-646) 

No. 92-6212 

(W.D. Okla . No. CIV-92-785-B) 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 2 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRBTI', Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge.** 

These two habeas petitions and six civil rights actions arise 

out of three separate Oklahoma state criminal proceedings. On 

March 27, 1987, the appellant, Jim R. Housley, was arrested in 

Tillman County, Oklahoma and charged with concealing stolen 

property. Although he was eventually acquitted of this offense, 

he claims that his property was never returned. 

The appellant was subsequently arrested for driving under a 

suspended license in Custer County, Oklahoma. On or about October 

4, 1990, following a jury trial, he was sentenced to six months in 

jail. Custer County Case No. CRM-90-238 . He was released on bond 

pending an appeal, but his appeal was never perfected. 

On September 7, 1991, while free on bond, the appellant was 

arrested and charged with drug trafficking, possession of drug 

paraphernalia, and possession of stolen property. Washita County 

Case No. CRF-91-48. His appeal bond was revoked. On December 16, 

1991, a preliminary hearing was held pursuant to these charges in 

* 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 materially 

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

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

submitted without oral argument. 

-3-

------ -

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 3 
Oklahoma state district court. At the time that the actions 

before us were filed, there had been no trial. 

In Appeal No. 92-6110 the appellant contests the district 

court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas corpus petition in 

which he objected to the revocation of his appeal bond issued in 

conjunction with his Custer County conviction. 1 The district 

court correctly held that failure to perfect his appeal on the 

underlying conviction renders him ineligible for release on appeal 

bond. According to Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §1058 (1986 ) , an appeal 

bond is available only when an appeal is taken. Further, "if the 

appeal is not perfected as provided by law, the defendant may be 

surrendered by the sureties to the proper authorities for the 

execution of the sentence." Id. In this case, the appellant 

failed to perfect his appeal on the underlying conviction and 

accordingly is not entitled to habeas relief regarding the repeal 

of his appeal bond. 

In Appeal No. 92-6189, the appellant objects to the dismissal 

of his civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3} and 

1986 brought against a judge and assistant district attorney for 

Custer County, Oklahoma. 2 The district court correctly held that 

the judge and prosecutor were immune from suits for their actions 

with respect to the revocation of the appeal bond, the denial of 

counsel for the repeal proceedings, and the presentation of 

1 The appellant's request to proceed in forrna pauperis is 

granted. 

2 The appellant's request to proceed in forrna pauperis is 

granted. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 4 
witnesses. Judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity 

for actions taken in their official capacities. Dennis v. Sparks, 

449 U.S. 24, 27 (1980) (judges); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S . 349, 

356-57 (1978) (judges); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-29 

(1976) (prosecutors). Furthermore the appellant's §1985(3 ) claim 

must fail because his complaint does not allege any racial or 

class-based discriminatory animus as is required under Griffen v. 

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971). Finally, the appellant's 

claims under §1986 must fail because there can be no liability for 

failing to prevent a civil rights conspiracy where there is no 

valid claim of conspiracy under §1985 . Taylor v. Nichols. 558 

F.2d 561, 568 (10th Cir. 1977) .

3 

In Appeal No. 92-6115, the appellant contests the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) complaints against the judge 

and assistant district attorney for illegal arrest, false 

imprisonment and imprisonment without arraignment arising out of a 

charge that the appellant was a fugitive from justice.

4 The 

district court correctly held that the judge and prosecutor were 

3 The appellant has also filed an "Affidavit Pursuant to Title 

28:144 - Bias or Prejudice of Judge" asserting essentially that 

because U.S. district court judge Luther Bohanon has previously 

ruled against the appellant he should be removed from this case. 

Ignoring the procedural defects of this request, we agree with the 

district court's conclusion that the affidavit fails to establish 

bias which would require Judge Bohanon to remove himself from the 

case. See United States v. Grinnell, 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966); 

United States v . Bray, 546 F.2d 851, 857-59 (10th Cir. 1976) . 

4 The appellant contends that sometime in late 1991 he was 

illegally arrested and falsely imprisoned in Oklahoma for being a 

fugitive from Justice in Texas. He further contends that he was 

held in jail for one month, during which time he repeatedly 

requested an arraignment, and that he was never charged with this 

crime. Apparently the charges were dropped on January 16, 1992. 

- 5-

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 5 
immune from suit because they were acting in their official 

capacities. See Dennis, 449 U.S. at 27; Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-

57; Imbler, 424 U. S. at 420-29 . 5 Furthermore the appellant's 

§1985(3) claim must fail because he does not allege any racial or 

class-based discriminatory animus as is required under Griffen v . 

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971) . 

In Appeal No. 6113, the appellant contests the dismissal 

without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint against various 

officials and private parties that alleged that on September 7, 

1991, he was the subject of an illegal search and seizure, an 

illegal arrest and an improper indictment. The district court 

accurately concluded that this action was not properly before the 

court because the criminal proceeding was still pending before the 

Oklahoma state courts. At the time this action was filed a 

preliminary hearing had been held in the state court; however, 

there had been no trial on the merits. A federal court may not 

enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §2254 

(b) (c) ; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Parkhurst v. State 

o f Wyoming, 641 F . 2d 775, 777 (10th Cir. 1981) . The district 

5 The appellant contends that the Oklahoma state judge and 

assistant district attorney acted beyond their jurisdiction 

because they incarcerated him for being a fugitive from justice in 

Texas. He asserts that the officials only had power in Oklahoma 

over Oklahoma crimes. Even though the appellant alleges that the 

district attorney and judge were acting beyond their jurisdiction, 

that does not negate the fact that the judge and attorney were 

still acting in their off icial capacities. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 

U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (immunity extends to erroneous and 

malicious actions as well as to actions taken outside authority). 

In fact, in response to a question in the complaint regarding 

color of state law, the appellant wrote "Emerson was acting in his 

official capacity as asst . Judge," and "Cowan was acting as asst . 

Dist. Attorney for Washita Co." Complaint at 1,2. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 6 
court properly abstained from consideration of the merits and 

dismissed the suit without prejudice. 

In Appeal No. 92-6119, the appellant objects to the dismissal 

without prejudice of his §2254 habeas petition which alleged that 

he was the subject of an illegal search and seizure, an illegal 

arrest and an improper indictment arising out of his arrest on 

September 7, 1991. 6 These are essentially the same claims raised 

in Case No. 92-6113. They were also properly dismissed without 

prejudice because of the pending state court proceedings. ~ 

Younger, 401 U.S. 37. 

In Appeal No. 92-6191, the appellant contests the dismissal 

of his civil rights claims brought under 42 U. S.C. §§ 1983, 

1985(3), and 1986. The underlying claim alleged that the 

defendant, an employee of the company which issued the appellant 

an appeal bond, defrauded the appellant, issued him an improper 

bond, 7 and conspired to inflict cruel and unusual punishment and 

wrongful imprisonment on him. The appellant failed to state a 

claim under §1983 because he failed to show how the bondsman, a 

private economic actor, acted under color of state law. In 

addition, the appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to find 

that the defendant acted in conspiracy with a state actor. 

Hammond v. Bales, 843 F.2d 1320, 1323-24 (10th Cir. 1988). A 

6 The appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted. 

7 The appellant claims that the defendant illegally used 

appearance bond forms rather than appeal bond forms. This 

assertion does not amount to a Constitutional claim and is 

therefore not appropriate for review under habeas corpus. ~ 

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 464, 478 (1963). 

-7-

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 7 
finding of joint action does not necessarily compel the conclusion 

that there was a conspiracy or collusive action. The appellant's 

§1985(3) claim must fail because he does not allege any racial or 

class-based discriminatory animus as is required under Griffen v. 

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971). Finally, the appellant's 

is not entitled to relief under §1986 because there can be no 

liability for failing to prevent a civil rights conspiracy where 

there is no valid claim of conspiracy under §1985 . Taylor v. 

Nichols, 558 F.2d 561, 568 (10th Cir. 1977). 

In Appeal No. 92-6190, the appellant contests the dismissal 

of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1986 claims brought against 

the state of Oklahoma arising out of the appellant's arrest and 

prosecution for driving under a suspended license. In Case No. 

92-6212, the appellant complains that his claims for damages 

against the state of Oklahoma arising out of his arrest and 

prosecution for concealing stolen property should not have been 

dismissed. 8 The district court properly dismissed the claims in 

8 The district court in Case No . 92-6212 also determined that 

the appellant had failed to inform the court of prior related 

appeals and that he had filed duplicative claims. Accordingly, 

the district court placed restrictions on the appellant's right to 

file claims in forma pauperis. 

The district court determined that the appellant had filed a 

total of 17 habeas petitions and civil rights claims between July 

18, 1988 and April 30, 1992. Further, 11 of those actions were 

filed in 1992. Many of these claims and petitions asserted the 

same violations and concerned the same events. In addition, the 

appellant consistently failed to fully disclose the existence of 

related claims as required in the complaint. For these reasons we 

agree with the district court's opinion that the appellant has 

abused the judicial process and affirm the restrictions adopted in 

its order of June 4, 1992. See Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916 

(10th Cir. 1992); Tripati v . Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 

19 89) . 

-8-

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 8 
both of these actions as proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment. 

Papasan v . Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 276 (1986); Pennhurst State 

9 School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). 

Further, the appellant's §1983 claims in Case No . 92-6212 were 

properly found to be barred by the Oklahoma statute of 

1 . . . 10 1m1tat1ons. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F . 2d 1512, 1522-24 (10th 

Cir. 1988) (holding that Oklahoma's two-year statute of 

limitations applies to §1983 actions). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the orders of the district courts in 

Case Nos. 92-6110, 92-6189, 92-6115, 92-6113, 92-6119, 92-6191, 

92-6190, and 92-6212. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

9 Further, a state is not a person for purposes of Section 

1983 liability. Will v . Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 

58, 64 (1989). 

10 The alleged violations in Case No. 92-6212 occurred in 1987 

while the action was not brought until April 30, 1992. Oklahoma 

Stat. tit. 12, §95(3) establishes a two year statute of 

limitations for "injury to the rights of another, not arising out 

of contract, and not hereinafter enumerated." 

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 92-6119 Document: 010110191099 Date Filed: 03/12/1993 Page: 10