A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 1, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J OHN J . S I GG,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. DI STRI CT CO UR T OF A LLEN CO UNT Y, KANS AS , 3 1 s tJ UDI CI AL DI S T RI CT ; L I NDA L . S I GG; S T E VE N B . DOE RI NG; L AR RY A. P RAUSE R; S P ECI AL M AST ER C . DAVI D NE WBE RR Y,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 3140 ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV - 2 4 3 6 - KHV)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e TY M KOVI CH , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.

Jo h n J. S ig g a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is c o m p lain t an d w e a ffirm . H is c laim s re late to a n o n g o in g d iv o rc e p ro c e e d in g in th e D istric t C o u rt o f

A llen C o u n ty , K a n sa s (S tate C o u rt). In a d d iti o n to th e S tate- 2-

C our t , the defendant s ar e M r . Si gg’ s ex- w i fe, L i nda L. Si gg; hercouns el , St even B . D o e rin g a n d L a rryA . P ra u se r; a n d a S p e c ial M a ste r a p p o in ted b yth e S tate C our t , C . D avi d N ew berry . M r . Si gg br oughtcl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng thatdefe ndant s cons pi r ed t o depr i ve hi m of pr opertyw i thoutdue pr oces s , i n vi ol at i on of the Fourt eenth A m endment . H e al s o al l eged s t at e l aw c la im s o f

c o n s p ir a c y , f

ra u d , a n d in te n tio n a l in flic tio n o f e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed the defendant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s . I tconcl uded that so v ere ign im m u n ityu n d er the E leve n th A m en d m en t barred all o f M r. S igg ’s cl ai m s agai ns tthe St at e C ourtand Speci al M as t erN ew berryi n hi s offi ci al c a p a c ity . It d ism iss e d a ll o f h is c laim s a g a in st S p e c ial M a ste r N e w b e rryin h is i ndi vi dual capa ci tyon the gr ound of abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty . T he di s tr i ct courtdi s m i s s ed hi s due pr oces s and cons pi r acycl ai m s agai ns tthe r emai ni ng defe ndant s becaus e he fai l ed t o al l ege thathi s pos t - depr i vat i on s t at e- l aw r emedy w a s in a d e q u a te, h o ld in g : “T h e rig h t o f d ire c t ap p e a l is p lain tiff ’s a d e q u a te p o stdepr i vat i on r emedyi n thi s cas e, and he makes no ar gum entw hys uch an appeal d o es n o t ult im atelyp rov ide h im d u e p roc ess e v en if th e [ stat e] D istri ct C o u rt err oneous l ydepr i ves hi m of pr opertyi n the cour s e of hi s di vor ce pr ocee di ng. ” R . , D oc. 46 at4. T he co urtal so grant ed in partM r. D oeri ng ’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss the s t at e- l aw cl ai m s . H avi ng di s m i s s ed al l of M r . Si gg’ s fede r al cl ai m s , the di s tr i ctcourtdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overhi s r emai ni ng st at e l aw cl ai m s and en t ered j ud gm ent i n fav or of d efen dan t s.W e h a v e lib e ra lly c o n s tru e d M r. S ig g ’s b ri e f o n a p p e a l. See de Si lva v. 1 P itts , 4 8 1 F . 3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 3 n . 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Yo u n g e r v . Ha rr is , 4 0 1 U . S . 3 7 (19 7 1 ). 2

- 3- M r . Si gg r ai s es s ever al cl ai m s of err or : ( 1) the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o vi ew 1 the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o hi m and i gnor ed hi s new evi dence ; ( 2) the courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m s bas ed on s over ei gn i m m uni tyand s houl d have al l ow ed hi m t o amend hi s compl ai ntt o name i ndi vi dual j udges as defe ndant s ; ( 3) the di s tr i ctcourtm i s appl i ed the Younger abs t ent i on doctr i ne and the r equi r ement 2 u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 th a t d e fe n d a n ts a c ted u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te la w ; (4 ) h e su fficie n tly all eg ed h is st ate-law claim s fo r frau d an d co n sp ir ac y ; and (5) the d istri ct co u rt shou l d n ot have d i sm i ssed hi s com plai nt w hen a m agis trat e j ud ge in the sam e case o rd e re d th e p a rties to m e d iate . H e se e k s a re m a n d to th e d istric t co u rt a n d a w rit of m andamus or der i ng m edi at i on. M r . Si gg’ s appea l bor der s on bei ng fr i vol ous . Fi r s t , becaus e the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s o rd e rs a re p ro p e rlyre v iew a b le b yw a yo f a p p e a l, w e d o n o t ad d re ss h is re q u e s t fo r m a n d a m u s re lie f. See In r e Koz eny , 2 3 6 F . 3 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 (10 th C ir . 2000) ( “A courtof appe al s has no occa s i on t o engage i n extr aor di naryr evi ew by m an d am u s w h en itca n ex erc ise th e sa m e re v iew b ya c o n tem p o ran eo u s o rdin ary appea l . ” ( quot at i on and al t er at i ons om i tt ed) ) . W e al s o do notaddr es s i s s ues he fa ile d to ra is e in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See Walkerv. Mather ( In re Walker

) , 959 F. 2d 8 9 4 , 8 9 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (ap p ly ing “g en era l ru le th at a fed era l app ell ate c o u rt- 4-

d o e s n o t c o n s id e r a n is s u e n o t p a s s e d u p o n b e lo w .” (q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) . M r . Si gg di d notm ove t o amend hi s compl ai ntt o add addi t i onal defe ndant s . N or di d he ar gue i n the di s tr i ctcourtthatthe ca s e s houl d have be en medi at ed r ather than di s m i s s ed. A s t o the otheri s s ues r ai s ed i n M r . Si gg’ s appea l br i ef, w e have re v iew e d th e re c o rd a n d th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e rs, a n d fin d in g n o re v e rsib le erro r, w e a ffirm fo r sub stan ti all ythe re aso n s set fo rth in the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord ers dat ed M ar ch 23 and A pr i l 19, 2007. T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u rti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge