UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ SIDNEY W. CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. RON SELLERS; RON HIRST; DANIEL FRIESEN; RENO COUNTY, KANSAS, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; AMANDA FLOES; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 23-3156 (D.C. No. 5:23- CV-03187-JWL) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BRISCOE , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This is a pro se civil rights appeal by an inmate in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections. After examini ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2 ); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argumen t. As explained below, we affirm the district court’ s dismissal of this case. Sidne y W. Clark fails to state a

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 25, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-3156 Document: 010110989785 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 12 claim because the defendants to this suit—state court clerks who performed a judicial function—enjoy immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit.
I. Sidney W. Clark is currently housed at th e state correctional fa cility in Norton, Kansas. He filed a 42 U.S. C. § 1983 complaint, seeki ng five million dollars and alleging that clerks of a state court interfer ed with his access to the courts by refusing to file pro se documents th at he submitted for filing in his then-pending criminal case. The clerks had advised they would not file the documents because Clark was represented by counsel and counsel must file all documents on his behalf. The district court dismissed Clark’ s case for failure to state a due process or court access claim. Among the court’s re asons for doing so, it concl uded the state court clerks were entitled to absolute immunity because they perform ed judicial functions. The court also denied Clark’s motion to recons ider. This timely a ppeal followed.
II. We review de novo an order dismissing an inmate’s case for failure to state a claim. McBride v. Deer , 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Ci r. 2001). The issues Clark raises on appeal each revolve around the dist rict court’s conclusion that Clark failed to state a claim in his ame nded complaint because the de fendants—state court clerks who performed a judicial function—have quasi-judicial immuni ty from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits. 1 His claims fail for a simple reason.

1 One unrelated issue that Clark raises on appeal is a challenge to the district court’s alternative basis for dismissing Clar k’s suit. In additi on to dismissing this Appellate Case: 23-3156 Document: 010110989785 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 23 Tenth Circuit precedent forecloses the § 1983 relief Clark s eeks. We have long recognized that court clerks enj oy “derivative” abso lute immunity for performing a “judicial function,” such as the “filing” of documents like in this case. Trackwell v. U.S. Gov’t , 472 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases). Because Clark’s claims each challenge how the defendants managed the filings in his underlying criminal case, the defendant s are entitled to j udicial immunity. See id. ; Fishinghawk v. Kissinger , 764 F. App’x 827, 828 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting that judges and clerks “whose role forms an integral pa rt of the judicial pr ocess are absolutely immune from liability for thei r judicial acts even if thei r exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave proced ural errors.” (c leaned up)). In response, Clark attempts to argue that the defendants here performed ministerial duties, not judicial ones, wh ich renders them liable in an individual personal capacity. True, this Court has recognized that some courts only award qualified immunity to court clerks who pe rform “ministerial and non-discretionary” tasks as opposed to “quasi-judi cial” or “judicial acts.” Henriksen v. Bentley , 644 F.2d 852, 855–56 (10t h Cir. 1981) (citing McCray v. Maryland , 456 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1972)).

case based on the defendants’ immunity, the district court concluded that Clark’s claims regarding the clerk’s office staff also failed because he was not entitled to file pro se documents when represented by couns el. Because this Court affirms based on the ground that the defendant s were entitled to absolute immunity, we need not address Clark’s argument agains t the district court’s altern ative ground for dismissal. See, e.g. , A.M. v. Holmes , 830 F.3d 1123, 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “we may affirm on any ground supported by the record”). Appellate Case: 23-3156 Document: 010110989785 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 34 However, this Court has since weighe d in on what clerk functions attain judicial immunity. See, e.g. , Trackwell , 472 F.3d at 1247 (“In th e context of judicial immunity from claims for damages, when a court clerk assists a court or a judge in the discharge of judicial functions, the cler k is considered the functional equivalent of the judge and enjoys derivative immuni ty.”). And here, th e state court clerks performed a judicial function—again, one that this Court has already recognized— controlling what filings co me before a court. Id.
III. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the dist rict court’s judgmen t and remind Clark that he remains obligated to make partial payments until his entire appellate filing fee has been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-3156 Document: 010110989785 Date Filed: 01/25/2024 Page: 4