FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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

C L A R K S . S P A L S B U R Y , J R .,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t,
v. CY NTH I A L. SI SS ON ; RO NA LD SC H U L T Z , as C ount yC our tJ udge, 8 th J u d i c i a l D i s tr i c t , L a r i m e rC o u n ty, C ol or ado; J A M E S H I A T T , as C hi ef and D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge, 8t h J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , L ar i m erC ount y , C ol or ado; S H E R L Y N K . S A M P S O N , p e rso n a lly and as C l erk of C our t , 8t h J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , L ar i m erC ount y , C ol or ado; S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO; T OWN OF E S T E S P A R K , C o lorad o ; E R IC R O S E , p e rso n a llya n d a s a se rg e a n t, E ste s P a rk P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, C o lo ra d o ; JO D I D R IN G , p e rso n a lly and as an off

i cer , E s t es Par k Pol i ce Dep a r t me n t , Col o r a d o ; GR EG FE L SI N G E R , per s onal l yand as l i eut enantand as s i s t antchi ef, E s t es Par k Pol i ce D epart m ent , C ol or ado; C O R E Y PA SS, per s onal l yand as an o ffice r, E ste s P a rk P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, Co l o r a d o ; J AM E S A. AL DE RD E N, as Sher i ff, L ar i m erC ounty , C ol or ado,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. C L A R K S . S P A L S B U R Y , J R .,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1193 ( D. C. No . 0 4
- c v - 1 4 5 8
- P S F
- M E H)

(D . C o lo .)-2-

v. T OWN OF E S T E S P AR K, C O L O R A D O ; E R IC R O S E , p e rso n a lly and as a s er geant , E s t es Par k Pol i ce De p a r t me n t , Co l o r a d o ; J ODI DR I NG, per s onal l yand as an off i cer , E s t es Par k Pol i ce D epart m ent , C ol or ado; G R E G FE L SI N G E R , per s onal l yand as l i eut enantand as s i s t antchi ef, E ste s P a rk P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, C o lo ra d o ; C O R E Y P A S S , p e rso n a lly and as an off

i cer , E s t es Par k Pol i ce De p a r t me n t , Co l o r a d o ; J AM E S A. A L D E R D E N , S h e r i ff, L a r i m e rC o u n ty, Co l o r a d o ; L AR I M E R C OUNT Y, ST A T E O F C O L O R A D O , as ow ner a n d o p e ra to r o f

L a rim e r C o u n ty Det e n t i o n Ce n t e r ; RO NA LD SC H U L T Z , as C ount yC our tJ udge, 8 th J u d i c i a l D i s tr i c t , L a r i m e rC o u n ty, C ol or ado; J A M E S H I A T T , as C hi ef and D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge, 8th J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , L ar i m erC ount y , C ol or ado; ST E PH E N SC H A PA N SK I , as D i s tr i ct C our tM agi s tr at e J udge, 8th J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , L ar i m erC ount y , C ol or ado; a n d S HE RL YN K. S AM P S ON, p e rso n a llya n d a s C ler k o f C o u rt, 8 th J u d i c i a l D i s tr i c t , L a r i m e rC o u n ty, C ol or ado, D efen dan t s, and CY NT HI A L . S I S S ON,

D efe ndant
- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1319 ( D. C. No . 0 4
- c v - 1 4 5 8
- P S F
- M E H)

(D . C o lo .)A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi 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 tt he 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 ptundert he 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 cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. -3- ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , M UR P HY and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

T hi s or derand j udgm entaddr es s es t w o cons ol i dat ed appe al s fi l ed by p lain tiff-a p p e llan t C lar k S . S p a lsb u ry , Jr. a f ter th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d h is l aw s ui tagai ns thi s ex- w i fe, C ynthi a L. Si s s on, and var i ous publ i c off i ci al s of L ar i m erC ount y , C ol or ado. I n appea l 06- 1193, M r . Spal s burychal l enges t he b a se s fo r th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is c laim s, a n d in 0 6 -1 3 1 9 , h e a ss e rts
e rr o r w ith re s p e c t to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a w a rd o f a tto rn e y s ’ fe e s to M s . S is s o n . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d w e A F F IR M in b o th app eal s. I . B ackgr ound A . Fa c ts O n J ul y18, 2003, M r . Spal s buryw as t o begi n a w eeke nd- l ong s chedul ed
v isi tat ion w ith h is son , Jam es. W h en h e w en t t o p ick u p Jam es f rom M s. S isson ’s-4-

h o m e , h o w e v e r, an a rg u m e n t en su e d , w h ich led to th e e v e n ts g iv in g rise to th is l aw s ui t . A cce pt i ng M r . Spal s bur y ’ s ver s i on of the fa ct s , as w e musti n r evi ew i ng a R u le 12 (b)(6 ) dism issal, itap p ea rs th e a rgu m en t beg an w h en M r. S p alsb u ry i nform ed M s . Si s s on thathe w oul d be r eturni ng J ames one dayear l i erthan pl anned, at8: 00 p. m . M s . Si s s on beca m e i r at e and de m anded thathe r eturn J ames at6: 00 p. m . W hen he r efus ed t o di s cus s the mat t erfur ther , M s . Si s s on appr oache d hi s carand s t ood i n the open doorw ayof the pas s engers i de hol di ng a t ape recorder. M r. S pals bu ryasked h er r epeatedl yt o m ov e aw ayfrom the car so that h e c o u ld d ri v e a w ay , b u t she ref u sed to b u d g e. E x asp era ted, M r. S p alsb u ry
w al ked overt o the pas s engers i de and “ gent l yl eane d the bac k of hi s s houl der ag ains t her sh o u lder, an d then u sed h is bo d yw eigh t t o slow lystartp u sh ing [h er] outof hi s cardoorw ay . ” R . , D oc. 2 at8. W hen M s . Si s s on began t o l os e gr ound,
s he bec ame enr aged a nd demanded thatM r . Spal s burycal l the pol i ce. H e di al ed 911 and s ai d thathe nee ded as s i s t ance i n get t i ng M s . Si s s on t o back a w ayfr om hi s cars o t hathe coul d l eave . E s te s P a rk p o lic e o ffic e rs E ri c R o s e a n d J o d i D ri n g re s p o n d e d to th e s c e n e . T heyi nt ervi ew ed both M r . Spal s buryand M s . Si s s on, as w el l as J ames a nd the
c o u p le’ s d a u g h ter , w h o h a d a lso w itn e ss e d th e w h o le e v e n t. A f ter listen in g to
w h a t ev e ry o n e h a d to sa y , o ffice rs R o se a n d D rin g c o n c lu d e d th a t th e yh a d to
m a k e a n a rr e s t u n d e r C o lo ra d o ’s m a n d a to ry a rr e s t la w . See C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 1 8 -6-8 0 3 . 6 (1). U n d er tha t l aw , “[ w ]he n a p ea ce o fficer d eterm ines that there-5-

is p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t a c rim e o r o ffe n se in v o lv in g d o m e stic vi ol ence . . . has been c om m i t t ed, the off i cers hal l , w i thoutundue del ay , arr es tt he per s on s us pect ed of i t s comm i s s i on . . . and cha r ge the per s on w i th the appr opr i at e cr i m e oroffe ns e. ” Id. T he off i cer s arr es t ed M r . Spal s buryand char ged hi m w i th har as s m ent , chi l d abus e, and domest i c vi ol ence . H e w as i ni t i al l ybooked atthe Est es Par k j ai l , buthe w as l at ertr ans ferr ed t o the Lar i m er C o u n tyD e ten tio n C e n ter a n d p lac e d in th e c u sto d yo f d e fe n d a n t L a rim e r C o u n ty Sher i ff, J ames A . A l der den. A ft erbei ng i n cus t odyforthr ee da y s , M r . Spal s buryw as fi nal l yr el eas ed on M onday , J ul y21. Si nce he w as notr el eas ed unt i l the eve ni ng, how ever , he w as unabl e t o r eportt o hi s j ob as a deputydi s tr i ctatt orneyi n C ol or ado’ s 14th J udi ci al D istric t. H e c laim s th a t u p o n h is re lea se , h is e m p lo y e r im m e d iate lyp lac e d h im on pai d s us pens i on and r eques t ed pol i ce r eport s and i nform at i on aboutthe
cr i m i nal char ges fi l ed aga i ns thi m . H e furthercl ai m s thathe w as eventual l yfi r ed
a s a re s u lt o f

h is a rr e s t a n d d e te n tio n a n d th e c ri m in a l c h a rg e s . O n J u ly 3 1 , a L ar i m erC ountyC our tj udge di s m i s s ed al l char ges agai ns tM r . Spal s buryon a te c h n ic a lity b e c a u s e h e h a d n e v e r b e e n s e rv e d w ith th e s u m m o n s a n d c o m p la in t. D ay s l at er , how ever , M r . Spal s buryr ece i ved a c al l fr om defe ndantpol i ce offi cer G r eg Fel s i nger , w ho or der ed hi m t o r etur n t o the pol i ce s t at i on s o thathe coul d be
s e rv e d w ith a s e c o n d s u m m o n s a n d c o m p la in t, r e in s ta tin g th e d is m is s e d c h a rg e s .-6-

M r . Spal s bur ycompl i ed and r eturned t o the s t at i on on A ugus t11, 2003, w her e he
w a s s e rv e d b yd e fe n d a n t p o lic e o ffic e r C o re yP a s s . M r . Spal s bur yfi l ed numer ous m ot i ons chal l engi ng the cr i m i nal char ges a g a in st h im , arg u in g p rim a rilyth a t th e p o lice o ffice rs la c k e d p ro b a b le c a u se to
arr esthim
. E ven tuall y , the d i stri ctat t orneyfi l ed an ex p art e m oti on t o d i sm i ss th e c h a r g e s w i th o u tr e s p o n d i n g t o a n y o f M r . S p a l s b u ry’ s m o t i o n s . U l t i m a t e l y, o n N o v e m b e r 2 6 , all c h a rg e s a g a in st M r. S p a lsb u ryw e re d ism iss e d a n d h is
cr i m i nal tr i al w as vaca t ed. W h il e the crim inal ch arg es a g ains t him w ere p en d ing , M r. S p alsb u ry pr epar ed a “ m i s demeanorcompl ai nt ” aga i ns tM s . Si s s on forheract i ons the eveni ng of J ul y18, char gi ng herw i th cr i m es of fa l s e i m pr i s onm ent , s econd degr ee c r i m i nal t amper i ng, and domest i c vi ol ence . R . , D oc. 2 at27. W hen he
a t t e mp t e d t o fi l e t h e c o mp l a i n t , h o we v e r , th e c o u n tyc l e r k , d e fe n d a n tS h e r l yn K. Sam ps on, t ol d hi m s he w oul d notform al l yfi l e the compl ai ntw i thouts eeki ng gui dance fr om hers uper i or s . Shor t l yther eaf t er , on the advi ce of

defe ndant
c o u n tyc o u rt ju d g e R o n a ld S c h u ltz, M s. S a m p so n re tu rn e d th e c o m p lain t to M r . Spal s bur yw i thoutfi l i ng i tori s s ui ng a new cas e number
. M r . Spal s buryfi l ed
a r eques tforr econs i der at i on, w hi ch w as r efe rr ed t o defe ndantJ ames H i at t , C hi ef J udge forthe Ei ghth J udi ci al D i s tr i ct . I n r es pons e, J udge H i at ti ns truct ed M s. S a m p so n n o t to c re a te a n e w c a se fo r M r. S p a lsb u ry ’s c rim in a l co m p lain t,
a n d in s te a d to file th e d o c u m e n t in h is p e n d in g d iv o rc e c a s e .H e fi l ed hi s or i gi nal compl ai nti n J ul y2004, butt hatcompl ai ntw as never 1 s erved. -7- B
. P rocedu ralHist ory B e c a u se m u c h o f

o u r d isp o sitio n , in p a rticu lar w ith re sp e c t to M r. S p a lsb u ry ’s c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n , req u ire s a n u n d e rsta n d in g o f th is
c a s e ’ s c o mp l e x p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o ry , we r e c o u n ti th e r e a ts o me l e n g th
. On A ugus t 10, 2004, M r . Spal s bur y fi l ed hi s fi r s t amended compl ai nt , as s er t i ng 1 el even c l ai m s forr el i ef a gai ns tfourcat egor i es of defendant s . W i th r es pectt o t he T o w n o f E stes P ark an d the d efen d an t po li ce o fficers (“E stes P ark d efen d an ts”), h e a ss e rte d c laim s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 fo r fa lse a rre st, fa lse im p riso n m e n t,
m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n , an d a b u se o f p ro c e ss , as w e ll as a lib e rtyin ter e st c laim underthe Four t eenth A m endmentpr emi s ed on the harm t o hi s r eput at i on and
e m p lo ym e n t p ro s p e c ts c a u s e d b yth e d e fe n d a n ts ’ a lle g e d d e fa m a to ry st a te m e n ts . H e al s o as s ert ed a s t at e l aw cl ai m agai ns tt he t ow n fornegl i genthi r i ng and
s u p e rv is io n . H e n a m e d S h e ri ff A ld e rd e n in a c la im fo r fa ls e im p ri s o n m e n t. A s to M s . S is s o n , h e a s s e rt e d a c la im fo r r e lie f e n title d s im p ly “C ri m e s /T o rt s ,” R . , D oc. 2 at22, w hi ch i ncl uded al l egat i ons t hats he comm i t t ed numer ous c rim in a l an d to rtio u s a c ts a g a in st h im a n d c o n sp ire d w ith th e p o lice o ffice rs to h a v e h im a rre ste d . A s w e e x p lain b e lo w , h o w e v e r, M r. S p a lsb u ry ’s s p e c ific
c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n a re n o t re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l b e c a u se h e d ism iss e d a ll of them vo l un t ari l y . F i nall y , M r. S pals bu ryassert ed a d ue p rocess cl ai m againstM r . Spal s bur yal s o as s ert ed a numberof cl ai m s chal l engi ng var i ous 2 C olor ado st atutes , bu tsi nce h e fai l ed to nam e a defend ant w i th respectt o these cl ai m s , and r ai s es no ar gum ent s conce rni ng them i n hi s appea l s , w e nee d not di s cus s them her e. -8- the defendantj udges and M s . Sam ps on ( “j udi ci al defe ndant s ”) , cl ai m i ng thatthey vi ol at ed hi s r i ght of equal acc es s t o the court s . I n the mi ds tof the ens ui ng 2
m ot i ons pr act i ce, M r . Spal s bur yt ender ed a s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , i n w hi ch h e a tte m p te d to c la ri f ys o m e o f

h is c la im s . O n M arc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 , a m ag istrate jud g e issu ed an ex tens ive re p o rt
r ecomm endi ng thatthe cl ai m s agai ns tt he Est es Par k defe ndant s and Sher i ff A l der den be di s m i s s ed pr i m ar i l ybas ed on the magi s tr at e j udge’ s concl us i on that M r . Spal s bury ’ s arr es tw as s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e. T he magi s tr at e j udge al s o deni ed M r . Spal s bury ’ s r eques tt o fi l e hi s s econd a m ended c om pl ai nt , but grant ed h i m l eave to fi l e a t hir d am end ed co m plai nt, no ti ncludi ng cl ai m s agai nst the di s m i s s ed defendant s . I n a compani on or der , how ever , t he magi s tr at e j udge i ncl uded a s harp w arni ng conce r ni ng M r . Spal s bury ’ s cont i nued pr os ecut i on of cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Si s s on and the j udi ci al defe ndant s . T he magi s tr at e j udge
a d v ise d M r. S p a lsb u ryth a t “h is a ttem p t to su e M s. S iss o n in fe d e ra l co u rt, an d h is
a ttem p t to su e h e r p u rsu a n t to § 1 9 8 3 , [w a s] f riv o lo u s” a n d th a t h e “ o u g h t to
a b a n d o n th is c laim b e fo re th e m a tter r e a c h e [ d ] a p o in t w h e re h e m a yb e m a d e to payfee s and cos t s . ” A pl ee. Si s s on Supp. A pp. at57. T he magi s tr at e j udge fu rth er w arn ed M r. S p alsb u rythat h is cl aim s ag ains t th e jud ici al de fe n d an ts w ere-9-

a lm o st c e rta in lyb a rre d b yju d icia l im m u n itya n d th a t th e lik e lih o o d o f h im
c o n v in c in g a fe d e ra l co u rt to in stru c t th e sta te c o u rt in m a tters re late d to h is
on- goi ng di s put e w i th M s . Si s s on w as “vi r tual l yzer o. ” Id. at58. O verM r . Spal s bur y ’ s obj ect i ons , on A pr i l 21, the di s tr i ctcour ti s s ued an
o rde r ac ce p ti n g an d ad o p ti n g the m ag istrate jud g e’s rec o m m en d ati o n . T h e c o u rt ag ree d that o fficers R o se a n d D ri n g h ad p rob ab le ca u se to arrest M r. S p alsb u ry
u n d e r C o lo ra d o ’s c rim in a l h a ra ss m e n t sta tu te b e c a u se M r. S p a lsb u rya d m itt e d to
u sing h is bo d yw eigh t t o p u sh M s. S isson aw ayfro m h is car. A n d the c o u rt concl uded thatt he di s m i s s al of the cr i m i nal char ges agai ns tM r . Spal s burydi d not i ps o fac t o es t abl i s h a l ack of pr obabl e ca us e. T her efor e, i thel d thatal l of M r . Spal s bur y ’ s cl ai m s pr emi s ed on the as s er t ed l ack of pr obabl e ca us e mustbe d i s mi s s e d
. Hi s a b u s e o f p r o c e s s , ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n , a n d d e fa ma t i o n c l a i ms
w e re a lso d ism iss e d b e c a u se th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. S p a lsb u ryfa iled to sta te fac t s m eet i ng t he el ement s of thos e cl ai m s . T he courtther efor e gr ant ed the Est es P a rk d e fe n d a n ts’ a n d S h e riff A ld e rd e n ’s m o tio n s to d ism iss , lea v in g o n ly M r . Spal s bur y ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tt he j udi ci al defe ndant s and M s . Si s s on. On J u n e 1 1 , M r . S p a l s b u r yfi l e d a “ Di s mi s s a l Re q u e s tAs Di r e c t e d By M agis trat e” cl ai m i ng that the m agis trat e j ud ge h ad o ral l yordered him t o d i sm i ss hi s r emai ni ng cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Si s s on and the j udi ci al defe ndant s . R . , D oc. 120 at1. H e s t at ed thatw hi l e he di s agr eed w i th the magi s tr at e j udge’ s l egal
c o n c lu sio n s, h e h a d n o c h o ice b u t to d ism iss h is c laim s if th e d istric t co u rt w o u ldR a th e r th a n c a ll i t h is th ird a m e n d e d c o m p lain t, M r. S p a lsb u rytit led th is 3 document“J une, 2005 A m endmentPur s uantt o M ar ch 7 O r der
. ” Id. , D oc. 107. -10- nots t aythe magi s tr at e j udge’ s rul i ng. C ont empora neous l y , he fi l ed an

“ O bje c tio n to M a g is tr a te ’s O rd e r” fo rm a lly o bje c tin g to th e o ra l o rd e r. Id. , D oc. 121. I n thi s document , M r . Spal s buryagai n agr eed t o di s m i s s w i thoutpr ej udi ce hi s cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Si s s on, r el y i ng on t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s concl us i on that th e c o u rt lac k e d su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r th o se c laim s. H e c h a n g e d h is pos i t i on, how ever , r egar di ng hi s cl ai m s agai ns tthe j udi ci al defe ndant s , i ndi cat i ng that h e w ishe d to p roc ee d w ith tho se c lai m s, d esp it e the m ag istrate jud g e’s
w a rn i n g th a tt h e y t o o w e r e s u bj e c tt o d i s m i s s a l o n o th e rg r o u n d s . C u r i o u s l y, how ever , tw o day s l at er , M r . Spal s buryfi l ed hi s thi r d amended compl ai nt 3 nami ng as defe ndant s M s . Si s s on and Sher i ff A l der den, al ong w i th the j udi ci al defe ndant s . O n J ul y8, M r . Spal s buryfi l ed an “ E m er gencyR eques tFor I m m edi at e St ayof M agi s tr at e’ s O r der , ” cl ai m i ng thatdur i ng a J ul y1 s t atus confe r ence , the magi s tr at e j udge di r ect ed hi m t o di s m i s s hi s compl ai ntorfac e s a n c tio n s . Id. , D oc. 119. I n i t , M r . Spal s burys t at ed thathe “di s agr ee[ d] w i th t he M agi s tr at e’ s l egal concl us i ons , but[w as ] fi l i ng a di s m i s s al of al l cl ai m s exce pt hi s 7th cl ai m forr el i ef ( r ai s i ng acc es s t o cour t s , due pr oces s , and equa l p ro te c tio n )” a g a in s t th e ju d ic ia l d e fe n d a n ts . Id. at1. A few w eeks l at er , t he j udi ci al defe ndant s and M s . Si s s on m oved t o di s m i s s t he thi r d amended
c o m p lain t.-11-

O n N o v e m b e r 1 6 , the d istric t co u rt issu e d a n o rd e r re sp o n d in g to M r . Spal s bur y ’ s r epea t ed s t at ement s conce rni ng the magi s tr at e j udge’ s al l eged
or derthathe di s m i s s hi s cl ai m s orfac e s anct i ons . H avi ng r evi ew ed the
courtr oom m i nut es , the mi nut e or der , and the tr ans cr i ptof the J ul y1 s t atus co n fe ren ce , the c o u rtco n clud ed that the re co rd re flec ted n o su ch o rde r. R athe r, the courtconcl uded i tw as cl earfr om the tr ans cr i ptthatM r . Spal s buryhad bee n gi ven an opportuni tyt o fur therr es ear ch hi s cl ai m s and con si der a v o lun tary di s m i s s al
. I n the end, M r . Spal s bur ydi d notdi s m i s s hi s cl ai m s agai ns tthe j udi ci al defe ndant s . A ccor di ngl y , the courtdi s pos ed of a l l r emai ni ng cl ai m s i n an o rd e r d a te d M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 . In th a t o rd e r, th e c o u rt first c o n c lu d e d th a t M r. S p a lsb u ryh a d v o lu n tar ily d ism iss e d h is c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 1 (a )( 2 ). U nderF. R . C i v. P. 41( a) ( 2) , a courtm ayor derdi s m i s s al “atthe plai nti ff’s i nst ance.” H ere, dis m i ssal of the cl ai m s agai nst M s . Si s s on cert ai nl ycomes “ atthe pl ai nt i ff’ s i ns t ance . ” M r . Spal s bur yhas nevers oughtt o w i thdr aw hi s di s m i s s al r eques tas t o her , des pi t e hi s ongoi ng and contr adi ct or yeffor t s t o cont i nue l i t i gat i ng otheras pect s of the ca s e. M r . Spal s buryhas on m or e than o n e o c c a sio n re p re se n ted to th is C o u rt th a t h e w ish e s to d ism iss h is cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Si s s on. R . , D o c. 18 8 at 4. T h e c o u rtw en t on to n o te th at giv en M r. S p alsb u ry ’s vo lun tary di s m i s s al of M s . Si s s on, i tdi d notneed t o deci de w hetheri thad s uppl ement al ju risd ictio n o v e r th o se c laim s. F in a lly , b a se d o n R u le 4 1 (a )(2 )’s d ire c tiv e th a t a-12-

d ism issal w ith o u t prejud ice b e “ u p o n su ch term s an d co n d it ion s as th e c o u rt deems pr oper , ” the courthel d thatM r . Spal s bury ’ s vol unt arydi s m i s s al of M s . Si s s on be ac compani ed byan or derdi r ect i ng hi m t o payheratt orney s ’ fee s an d co sts. A s to M r. S p alsb u ry ’s claim s ag ains t th e jud ici al de fe n d an ts, the c o u rt hel d thathe had fai l ed t o s how an uncondi t i onal r i ghtt o i ni t i at e cr i m i nal char ges againstM s. S i sson. T hu s, his con st i tuti on al ri gh t s w ere notviol at ed b ytho se d efen d an ts’ ref

u sal t o fil e h is cri m inal co m p lai n t. In a d d it ion , the c o u rt concl uded M r . Spal s bur y ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe j udi ci al defe ndant s , i ncl udi ng M s . Sam ps on, w er e barr ed byabs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty . I tther efor e di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s agai ns tthe j udi ci al defe ndant s w i th pr ej udi ce, buts t opped s hor tof
a w a rd in g th o s e d e fe n d a n ts fe e s a n d c o s ts . M s. S iss o n ’s m o tio n fo r a tto rn e y s’ fe e s s o o n fo llo w e d , req u e stin g fe e s in the amountof $9, 169. 75 and cos t s of $100. 00. M r . Spal s buryobj ect ed t o the
m o ti o n , arg u ing g en era ll ythat the ra tes ch arg ed an d ti m e e x p en d ed w ere e x c e s s i v e . H e a l s o c l a i m e d th a tM s . S i s s o n h a d n o ta c tu a l l y p a i d h e ra t t o rn e ys the ent i r e amountforw hi ch s he s oughtr ei m bur s ement . H e r eques t ed a thr ee- day evi dent i aryhear i ng t o enabl e hi m t o cr os s - exami ne w i tnes s es and al s o s ought p e rm is s io n to s e rv e w ri tte n d is c o v e ry c o n c e rn in g th e fe e re q u e s t. T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed M r . Spal s bury ’ s r eques tfordi s covery , expl ai ni ng thati t s aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s t o M s . Si s s on w as notan i nvi t at i on “t o embar k on
s at el l i t e l i t i gat i on, fur therdel ay i ng the compl et i on of thi s s ui t , ” R . , D oc. 203 at2,-13-

and conc l udi ng t hatM r . Spal s bur yhad fa i l ed t o s how a good fa i th bas i s for di s coveryundert he ci r cumst ance s . T he courts ubs equent l yi s s ued an or der g ran ti n g M s. S isson ’s m o ti o n fo r att o rne y s’ fe es a n d d en y ing M r. S p alsb u ry ’s req u est fo r an ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g . W ith resp ec t t o the h ea ri n g , the c o u rt
re a s o n e d th a t its n e g a tiv e a s p e c ts w o u ld fa r o u tw e ig h a n yp o te n tia l b e n e fits
. A nd as t o the fe e r eques t , the courthel d thatthe amountr eques t ed w as nei ther unexpec t edl yexce s s i ve norunr eas onabl e and i tr ei t er at ed thatM r . Spal s buryhad fai l ed t o ci t e anyfac tual bas i s forhi s cont ent i on thatthe fe es w er e exc es s i ve or notactual l ypai d byM s . Si s s on. U l t i m at el y , the courtdet erm i ned a fee a w ar d of $ 8 ,7 5 0 .0 0 w a s a p p ro p ri a te , in a d d itio n to $ 1 0 0 .0 0 in c o s ts . M r. S p a lsb u ryth e n filed a p p e a ls b o th o f th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to di s m i s s hi s cl ai m s and i t s aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s t o M s . Si s s on. I I . D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew di s m i s s al s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 1)
a n d (6 ) d e n o v o . High C ountr y C i t iz ens A l l i ance v . C larke , 454 F. 3d 1177, 1180 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 2134 ( 2007)
. T he gr antof a vol unt arydi s m i s s al pur s uantt o R ul e 41( a) ( 2) , how ever , i s r evi ew ed forabus e of d is c re tio n . C o u n t

y o f Sa n ta Fe v . P u b
. S e r v . C o . o f N
. M. , 311 F. 3d 1031, 1047 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ).B as ed on the fa ct s al l eged i n the fi r s tamended compl ai nt , w e have our 4 d o u b ts as to w h ethe r th ere w as p rob ab le ca u se to b eli ev e M r. S p alsb u ry comm i t t ed the offens e of c hi l d abus e. A s t he Second Ci r cui tnot ed i n J a eg ly , how ever , ther e has l ong been a cons ens us among t he court s of appe al s t hatan a rre st is la w f

u l so lo n g a s o n e o f

th e c h a rg e d c rim e s is su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e, even i f pr obabl e ca us e i s l acki ng as t o otherchar ged cr i m es . 439 F. 3d at 1 5 3 n .1 (c o llec tin g c a se s). T h e d istric t co u rt w a s, th e re fo re , co rre c t to lim it i ts in q u iryto th e c h a rg e o f h a ra ss m e n t. -14- A . Este s P a rkD e

fen da n ts and Sher i

f f A lder den M r. S p a lsb u ryc laim s th a t th e E ste s P a rk d e fe n d a n ts v io late d h is F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s byarr es t i ng hi m w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e on the eve ni ng of J ul y18, 2003. “[A ] w arr ant l es s arr es tbya l aw offi ceri s r eas onabl e underthe Four th A m endmentw her e ther e i s pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thata cr i m i nal offe ns e has been ori s bei ng comm i t t ed. ” D evenp eck v. A l f ord , 543 U . S. 146, 152 (2 0 0 4 ). In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n o ffice r h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to m a k e a n a rre st,
we l o o k o bj e c t i v e l ya tth e r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s th a tc o u l d h a v e b e e n d r a wn b a s e d o n th e fa c ts k n o w n to th e o ffic e r a t th e tim e o f th e a rr e s t. See i d. at152- 53. I n D eve npeck , the Supr eme C our tcl ar i fi ed thatan arr es ti s l aw ful underthe F o u rth A m e n d m e n t so lo n g a s p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d a s to a n yo ffe n se th a t co u ld b e c h a rg e d
. See i d. T h u s, “ it i s n o t re lev a n t w h e th e r p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d w ith
r es pectt o eac h i ndi vi dual char ge, or , i ndeed, anychar ge ac tual l yi nvoked bythe
arr es t i ng offi ceratthe t i m e of a r r es t . ” Jaegl y v. C ouch , 439 F. 3d 149, 154 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 4-15-

F o c u s i n g s p e c i fi c a l l yo n th e c h a r g e o f h a r a s s me n t , M r . S p a l s b u ryc l a i ms the arr es t i ng offi cer s coul d nothave ha d pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve he comm i t t ed thatoffe ns e bec aus e the expl anat i on he gave them fore cl os ed anypos s i bi l i tythat h e a c ted w ith c rim in a l in ten t to w a rd s M s. S iss o n . T h e fa c ts d iv u lg e d in M r . Spal s bur y ’ s compl ai ntr evea l thatoffi cer s R os e and D r i ng arr i ved at M s. S isson ’s ho m e in re sp o n se to a 9 1 1 ca ll to find M s. S isson an d M r. S p alsb u ry e n g a g e d in a h e a ted a rg u m e n t. M r. S p a lsb u rya d m itt e d th a t h e tried to p h y sic a lly
m ove M s . Si s s on aw ayfr om hi s car , and thats he r es i s t ed, beca m e enr aged, and d e m a n d e d th a t h e c a ll th e p o lice . U n d e r C o lo ra d o law , “a p e rso n c o m m its har as s m enti f, w i th i nt entt o har as s , annoy , oral arm anotherper s on, h e . . . [s ]trik e s, sh o v e s, k ick s, o r o th e rw ise to u c h e s a p e rso n o r su bjec ts h im to p h y sic a l co n tac t.” C o lo . R e v . S tat. § 1 8 -9 -1 1 1 (1 )(a ). C o lo ra d o ’s d o m e stic viol ence st atute r equ i res an o ffi cer t o m ake an arr estw hen he h as probab l e cause to b e lie v e th a t a c ri m e in v o lv in g d o m e s tic v io le n c e h a s o c c u rr e d
. See C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 6- 803. 6( 1)
. W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatbas ed on thes e fa ct s , t he pol i ce offi cer s had pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve M r . Spal s buryhad
com m i t t ed the offe nse of harass m ent and p roperl yplaced him un der arres t p u rs u a n t to C o lo ra d o la w . M r . Spal s bur yzea l ous l yar gues , and cl ai m s he t ol d the off i cer s atthe t i m e, thathe ac t ed w i th no cr i m i nal i nt entt ow ar ds M s . Si s s on and w as m er el ytry i ng t o defe nd hi m s el f and hi s pr operty . “A pol i ceman, how ever , i s underno-16-

o b lig a tio n to g iv e a n yc re d e n c e to a su sp e c t’s s to ry ,” a n d e v e n a p lau sib le expl anat i on i n no w ay“r equi r e[s ] the off i cert o for ego arr es tpendi ng fur ther i nves t i gat i on i f the fa ct s as i ni t i al l ydi s cover ed pr ovi de pr obabl e ca us e. ” C r is s v. C i t y of Kent , 8 6 7 F .2 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 3 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); s ee R om er o v. Fay , 45 F. 3d 1472, 1480 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng C riss and hol di ng thatpl ai nt i ff’ s pr ot es t at i ons of in n o c e n c e d id n o t re q u ire d e fe n d a n ts to fo rg o a rre st). T h e d istric t co u rt, therefore, properl ydis m i ssed M r. S pals bu ry ’s § 1 98 3 clai m prem i sed on fal se arr es tand fa l s e i m pr i s onm ent . I tfol l ow s thatM r . Spal s bury ’ s fal s e i m pr i s onm ent cl ai m agai ns tSher i ff A l der den w as al s o pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. N otonl ydi d the pol i ce offi cer s have pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tM r . Spal s bury , butthe Sher i ff, as t he offi ci al char ged w i th m ai nt ai ni ng cus t odyof M r . Spal s bury , had no i ndepende nt d u ty to in v e s tig a te h is e v e ry c la im o f in n o c e n c e . See Sc ul lv. New Mexi co , 236 F . 3 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 8 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). I n a s epar at e cl ai m forr el i ef e nt i t l ed “M al i ci ous Pr os ecut i on; A bus e of Pr oces s , ” R . , D oc. 2 at23, M r . Spal s buryacc us es the Est es Par k defe ndant s of viol at i ng his con st i tuti on al ri gh t s bypu rs uing unj ust i fi ed cri m i nal charges agai nst hi m w i th t he purpos e of i nt i m i dat i ng hi m and avoi di ng char gi ng M s . Si s s on for h er c ri m inal ac ts. Ith as lo n g b ee n estab li sh ed that a m isuse o f leg al pro ce d u re
m aybe s o egr egi ous as t o amount t o a depr i vat i on of cons t i tut i onal di m ens i ons c o m p e n s a b le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . Tayl orv. Meacham , 8 2 F . 3 d 1 5 5 6 , 1 5 6 1 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 6 )
. I n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e ra p l a i n t i ff h a s s t a t e d s u c h a c l a i m, h o we v e r , we-17-

s ta rt w ith th e c o m m o n la w e le m e n ts o f m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n . Id. O nl yi f al l t he el ement s ar e met , need w e pr ocee d t o the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe p la in tiff h a s p ro v e n a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t v io la tio n . See i d. Un d e rCo l o r a d o l a w, one of the el ement s form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on i s thatthe defendantact ed w i thout p ro b a b le c a u s e . Hew i t tv. R i ce , 154 P. 3d 408, 411 ( C ol o. 2007) ( l i s t i ng el ement s )
. Si nce w e have al r eadydet erm i ned thatthe Est es Par k defe ndant s had pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tM r . Spal s bury , hi s § 1983 cl ai m pr emi s ed on mal i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n w a s p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d
. W e r eac h the s ame concl us i on w i th r es pectM r . Spal s bury ’ s cl ai m pr emi s ed
o n ab u se o f p roc ess. “U se o f a lega l pro ce ed ing in an im p rop er m an ner i s an es s ent i al el ementof an a bus e of pr oces s cl ai m . ” Jam es H
. Moo re & Assocs. R e a lty, In c . v. A rr o w h e a da t V a il , 8 9 2 P .2 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 3 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ).

“ C las sic e x a m p les o f

th e re q u isite im p ro p e r u se in c lu d e th e u se o f p ro c e ss to
acc om pl i s h a coe r ci ve goal w hi ch i s notthe i nt ended l egal purpos e of the pr oces s . ” Id. T her efor e, even i f M r . Spal s bury ’ s al l egat i ons conce rni ng the d e fe n d a n ts’ a lleg e d u lterio r m o tiv e s a re tru e , the re w a s n o a b u se o f p ro c e ss if th e p ro c e s s w a s u s e d fo r t h e p u rp o s e fo r w h ic h it w a s in te n d e d
. See i d. M r . Spal s bur y ’ s fi r s tamended compl ai ntcont ai ns no fac t s t o i ndi cat e thatthe E s t es Par k defe ndant s arr es t ed and f i l ed cr i m i nal char ges agai ns thi m forany otherpurpos e than t o pr os ecut e hi m forthe offens es thatoccurr ed on J ul y18, 2 0 0 3 . A s s u c h , h e h a s fa ile d to s ta te a n a b u s e o f p ro c e s s c la im
.-18-

F inally , M r. S p alsb u ryasse rt s tha t false statem en ts m ad e b ythe E stes P ark d e fe n d a n ts in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e ir fili n g o f c rim in a l ch a rg e s a g a in st h im damaged hi s r eput at i on i n the l ocal comm uni ty , caus ed hi m t o l os e hi s j ob, and
m ad e itim p o ssible fo r him to g ain f u ture e m p loym en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt
corr ect l yi nterpret ed thi s cl ai m as a l i bertyi nter estcl ai m un der the D ue P rocess C la u s e o f

th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t. D amage t o one’ s r eput at i on, s t andi ng al one, i s i ns uffi ci entt o i m pl i cat e due p ro c e ss p ro tec tio n s. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld , h o w e v e r, th a t u n d e r c e rta in circu m stan ce s a p rotec ti b le l ibertyinterest m ayb e im p li ca ted “ w h ere a p erso n ’s good name, r eput at i on, honor , ori nt egr i tyi s ats t ake be caus e of w hatthe governm enti s doi ng t o hi m . ” B d . o f R eg e n ts o

f S ta te C o lls. v. R o th , 40 8 U. S. 564, 573 ( 1972) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed)
. I n Jens en v. R edev
. A gency of Sa n d y C ity , 998 F. 2d 1550, 1558 ( 10th C i r . 1993) , w e hel d thatt o be s ucce s s ful on a depr i vat i on of l i bertyi nt er es tcl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff musts how ( 1) thatthe defe ndantpubl i s hed fa l s e and s t i gm at i zi ng i nform at i on; and ( 2) thatthe al l eged stig m a tiza tio n w a s e n tan g led w ith so m e f u rth e r in ter e st. W e g a v e a s o n e e x a m p le
a p la in tiff

w h o a lle g e s p re s e n t h a rm to e s ta b lis h e d b u s in e s s re la tio n s h ip s . Id. A nd w e not ed i n part i cul art hat“[d] amage t o pr os pect i ve empl oym ent oppor tuni t i es i s t oo i nt angi bl e t o cons t i tut e depr i vat i on of a l i bertyi nt er es t . ” Id. at1559. L at erw e r efi ned the t es ti n r es pons e t o the verytype of c l ai m that M r . Spal s bur yas s ert s her e, i nvol vi ng “a l i bertyi nt er es ti n [the pl ai nt i ff’ s ] good-19-

name and r eput at i on as i taffect s [hi s ] pr opertyi nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym ent . ” St i dham v. P eace O f f i cerStandar ds & Tr ai ni ng , 265 F. 3d 1144, 1153 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot at i on om i t t ed)
. W e hel d: Fi r s t , t o be ac t i onabl e, t he s t at ement s m us ti m pugn the good name, r eput at i on, honor , ori nt egr i tyof the empl oy ee. Second, the s t at ement s m us tbe fa l s e. T hi r d, the s t at ement s m us toccuri n the cour s e of t erm i nat i ng the empl oy ee orm us tfor ecl os e other empl oym entoppor tuni t i es . A nd four th, the s t at ement s m us tbe publ i s hed. Id. (qu o tat ion an d it ali cs o m itted). M r . Spal s bur y ’ s l i bertyi nt er es tcl ai m fai l s fortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , he has no col or abl e cl ai m of fa l s i ty , as the magi s tr at e j udge def t l yexpl ai ned i n hi s M ar ch 7, 2005, r eportand r ecomm endat i on. [P] l ai nt i ff i s unabl e t o pr ove thatthe Est es Par k defe ndant s defa m ed h im w ith fa lse in fo rm a tio n . T h e fa c ts re lied u p o n b yth e p o lice to su p p o rttheir de cisi o n to arres t, at th e v eryleast, are the fac ts th at are pr es ent ed bypl ai nt i ff i n hi s [fi r s tamended compl ai nt ] . Pl ai nt i ff m er el ydi s agr ees w i th the cr edi bi l i tydeci s i ons , i nfer ence s and c o n c lu s io n s th a t th e p o lic e e le c te d to d ra w f ro m th o s e fa c ts . . . . [ P ]la in tiff ’s fa c ts re flec t th e e x iste n c e o f p ro b a b le c a u se fo r h is a rre st, a n d p lain tiff

is th e re fo re u n a b le to sh o w a n yfa lse n e ss in re latio n to h is a rre st. R ., D o c . 7 4 a t 2 9 . S e c o n d , M r. S p a lsb u ryfa iled to a lleg e a n yfa c ts th a t w o u ld
s at i s fythe thi r d pr ong of the St i dham t es t . I n thatcas e, w e made cl earthatt o be act i onabl e under§ 1983, the al l eged de famat i on m us thave be en ut t er ed i nci dent to p la in tiff ’s te rm in a tio n . St i dham , 2 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 4 ; s ee Si eger tv. G i l l ey , 500 U . S. 226, 234 ( 1991)
. W e have no doubtthatthe cr i m i nal char ges l evi edS i nce M r. S pals bu ryfai l ed to st at e anycon st i tuti on al viol at i on s as agai nst 5 the Est es Par k pol i ce offi cer s , the di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l ydi s m i s s ed hi s negl i gence c la im a g a in s t th e T o w n o f E s te s P a rk
. Tayl or , 82 F. 3d at1564 ( hol di ng that cl ai m agai ns ts upervi s oryauthor i tyi s pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed once courtconcl udes that em p loy ee co m m itted n o co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion ). -20- a g a in s t M r. S p a ls b u ry d a m a g e d h is re p u ta tio n a n d c o n tr ib u te d to h im b e in g fir e d
. B utas the di s tr i ctcourtpoi nt ed out , M r . Spal s buryw as notempl oy ed bythe Est es P a rk d e fe n d a n ts , a n d th o s e d e fe n d a n ts p la y e d n o ro le in th e d e c is io n to fir e h im
. I n Siegert , the S u p re m e C o u rt re c o g n ize d th a t d e fa m a tio n p lain tiffs typ ica lly sh o w sp e c ial d a m a g e s a n d o u t-o f-p o c k e t lo ss e s flo w in g f ro m th e inju ryto th e ir rep u tat ion s. Ith eld, ho w ev er, th at “so lon g as [ the] d am ag e flow s fro m injury
caus ed byt he defendantt o a pl ai nt i ff’ s r eput at i on, i tm aybe r ecove r abl e under
s t at e t or tl aw buti ti s notr ecove r abl e i n a [§ 1983] act i on. ” 500 U . S. at234. T he d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l yd i s mi s s e d M r . S p a l s b u ry ’ s l i b e r tyi n t e r e s tc l a i m. 5 B . Th e Ju d icia l D e

fen da n ts I n hi s num er ous fi l i ngs , M r . Spal s buryexpl ai ns i n det ai l t he C ol or ado
cr i m i nal pr ocedur e rul es thathe cl ai m s ent i t l ed hi m t o i ni t i at e a c r i m i nal pr ocee di ng agai ns tM s . Si s s on. U nl i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e dec l i ne t o i ndul ge thi s ar gum entbeca us e r egar dl es s of M r . Spal s bury ’ s r i ghtt o i ni t i at e a c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on unders t at e l aw , the j udi ci al defe ndant s enj oyabs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om h is § 1 9 8 3 c la im s u n le s s th e ya c te d w ith o u t ju ri s d ic tio n . Ledbet t erv. C i t y of Topeka , 31 8 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 89 (10t h C i r. 20 03 ). E ven i f t he judi ci al defe nd ants ’ act s vi ol at ed C ol or ado l aw , theyar e nonethel es s i m m une fr om ci vi l damages-21-

lia b ility b e c a u s e th e yc le a rl yd id n o t a c t in th e a b s e n c e o f a ll ju ri s d ic tio n . See i d. A n d th is im m u n itya lso e x ten d s to M s. S a m p so n , w h o , as th e c o u rt c ler k , is
acc us ed of no more than as s i s t i ng J udges Schul t z and H i at ti n the di s char ge of th e irju d ic ia l f

u n c tio n s . S ee Tra ckw ellv. Un itedS tates G o v’t , 472 F. 3d 1242, 1 2 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e x p la in in g c le rk ’s d e ri v a tiv e im m u n ity). Fur therm or e, t o the ext entM r . Spal s bury ’ s thi r d amended compl ai nts eeks
an o rderdir ect i ng t he judi ci al defe nd ants t o acce pt fi l i ng of h i s “‘ ci t i zens’
m i s demeanorcompl ai nt , ” R . , D oc. 107 at22, the di s tr i ctcourtcl ear l yl acke d ju risd ictio n to a w a rd su c h re lief. F e d e ra l co u rts h a v e n o a u th o rityto “ d ire c t sta te
court s orthei rj udi ci al offi cer s i n the per form ance of thei rdut i es . ” Van Si ckle v. Hol l ow ay , 7 9 1 F .2 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 6 n .5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); see also Sm i th v. United S tates C t . of Appea ls, Tenth C i r. , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 2 8 1 , 1 2 8 7 (10 th C ir
. 2007) ( “dec l i n[i ng] t o r eca s t[pl ai nt i ff’ s ] r eques tform andamus a s a § 1983 cl ai m ” and “ adher [i ng] t o ourgener al pr ohi bi t i on on i s s ui ng a w r i tof m andamus t o a s t at e courtj udge”)
. Fi nal l y , as M r . Spal s buryhas al l eged no fact s s how i ng he w as i n anyw ayfor ecl os ed fr om fi l i ng a gr i evanc e i n the s t at e courts y s t em
r e g a r d i n g th e a c t s o f

th e j u d i c i a l d e fe n d a n t s , h e h a s n o tb e g u n t o s h o w a d e p ri v a tio n o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t. See g enerall y O lson v. Hart , 965 F. 2d 940, 943 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( expl ai ni ng thati nj unct i ve r el i ef unde r§ 1983 i s not
av ail ab le ab sen t dep ri v ati o n o f fed era l r igh t)
. A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rt
com m i t t ed n o err or i n d i sm i ssi ng his cl ai m s agai nstthe judi ci al defe nd ants .-22-

C
. Ms . Sis s on i
. D is m is s alUnderR ul e 41( a) ( 2) A s w e no t ed ab ov e, t he d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed al l cl ai m s agai nst M s . Si s s on pur s uantt o fi l i ngs thati ti nt erpr et ed as r eques t s t o di s m i s s under Ru l e 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 )
. M r . S p a l s b u r yn o w a r g u e s th a th e a g r e e d t o d i s mi s s h i s c l a i ms agai ns tM s . Si s s on underdur es s bas ed on the magi s tr at e j udge’ s faul tyl egal
r eas oni ng as t o the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on and hi s thr eatof s anct i ons . W e ar e not convi nced byM r . Spal s bur y ’ s att empt t o underm i ne hi s ow n deci s i on, w hi ch w as c lea rlym a d e w ith th e in ten t to p ro se c u te th e sa m e c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n in
s ta te c o u rt . M r. S p a ls b u ry h a s b e e n a lic e n s e d a tto rn e yfo r o v e r t w e n ty y e a rs . See R ., D o c . 2 a t 5 -6 . A s s u c h , the m a g istra te ju d g e a c ted w e ll w ith in h is di s cr et i on i n r emi ndi ng M r . Spal s burythathi s cont i nued pr os ecut i on of any frivo lou s claim s m igh t r esu ltin sa n cti o n s. In h is M arc h 7 , 2 0 0 5 co m p an ion o rde r, the magi s tr at e j udge ce r t ai nl yques t i oned w hetherthe courthad s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overt he cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Si s s on. B uthe s peci fi cal l ygr ant ed M r. S p a lsb u rylea v e to file a th ird a m e n d e d c o m p lain t af ter u rg in g h im to th o ro u g h ly re s e a rc h th e v ia b ility o f a ll r e m a in in g c la im s . M r. S p a lsb u ryre sp o n d e d b yfili n g n u m e ro u s c o n flictin g d o c u m e n ts
c o n c e rn in g w h e th e r h e a g re e d w ith th e m a g istra te’ s c o n c lu sio n s a s to
su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n . In th e e n d , h o w e v e r, itis c lea r th a t h e v o lu n tar ily
c h o se to d ism iss th e c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n w ith o u t p reju d ice so th a t h e c o u ld-23-

re file th e m in sta te c o u rt, as is e v id e n t f ro m M r. S p a lsb u ry ’s r e sp o n se to M s. S iss o n ’s m o tio n to d ism iss : B as ed on the C our t ’ s or al rul i ng and thr eatthatcont i nui ng any claim s ag ains t Sisso n in F ed era l cou rtw o u ld b e im p rop er, Sp alsb u ry r eques t ed di s m i s s al of cl ai m s agai ns tSi s s on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on s o th e yc o u ld b e p u rs u e d in s ta te c o u rt . . . .

. . . T he C ou rtm ustsi m plydis m i ss Spals bu ry ’s cl ai m s agai nst S isson o n the g rou n d s o f lac k o f ju ri sd ict ion , that is w h at S p alsb u ry so u g h t i n Ju lyto co m p lyw ith this C o u rt ’s ord ers, an d S p alsb u ry conce des t he cl ai m s m us tbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of Feder al j uri sdi ct i on based o n the C ou rt ’s pri or ruli ng s. Id. , D oc. 149 at4, 5. B as ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, w e al s o agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng t hatM r . Spal s buryw as neveror der ed, or al l yorotherw i s e, to d ism iss h is c laim s a g a in st M s. S iss o n . In sh o rt, M r. S p a lsb u ryh a s fa iled to
c o n v i n c e u s t h a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d i s mi s s i n g h i s c l a i ms ag ains t M s. S isson u n d er R u le 41 (a)(2). i i
. A w ar d of

A t tor neys ’Fees F inally , w e a d d ress M r. S p alsb u ry ’s ap p ea l of the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord ers gr ant i ng M s . Si s s on’ s m ot i on foratt orney s ’ fee s and deny i ng hi s r eques t s for di s coveryand an e vi dent i aryhear i ng. W e r evi ew eac h of thes e dec i s i ons foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Santana v. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 488 F. 3d 860, 867 (10 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ) (ap p ly ing ab u se o f d iscreti o n stan d ard to d isco v eryruli n g s); R obi ns on v. C i t

y of E dm ond , 160 F. 3d 1275, 1286 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng a b u se o f d isc re tio n sta n d a rd to d e c isio n d e n y in g h e a rin g ); cf
. A er oTech, Inc. v.-24-

Es t es , 110 F. 3d 1523, 1528 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( appl y i ng abus e of di s cr et i on stan d ard to d ec isi o n n o t t o aw ard fe es u n d er R u le 41 (a)(2)). R ul e 41( a) ( 2) pr ovi des t hat“an a ct i on s hal l notbe di s m i s s ed atthe pl ai nt i ff’ s i ns t ance s ave upon or derof the courtand upon s uch t erm s and condi t i ons as t he courtdeems pr oper . ” C our t s have l ong r ecogni zed that“[w ] hen
a p lain tiff

d ism iss e s a n a c tio n w ith o u t p reju d ice , a d istric t co u rt m a yse e k to
r ei m bur s e the defendantforhi s at t orney s ’ fee s beca us e he face s a r i s k thatthe pl ai nt i ff w i l l r efi l e the s ui tand i m pos e dupl i cat i ve expe ns es upon hi m . ” A er ot ech, Inc. , 110 F. 3d at1528 ( ci t i ng C aul ey v . Wi ls on , 754 F. 2d 769, 771- 72 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 )). H e re , the d istric t co u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in
aw ar di ng fee s t o M s . Si s s on, part i cul ar l yi n l i ghtof M r . Spal s bury ’ s expr es s ed in te n t to re file th e d is m is s e d c la im s in s ta te c o u rt . See R . , D oc. 188 at5 ( di s tr i ct
c o u rt o rd e r)
. W e al s o concl ude the di s tr i ctcour tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng M r . Spal s bur y ’ s r eques t s fordi s coveryand an e vi dent i aryhear i ng. I n s uppor tof herfee r eques t , M s . Si s s on att ache d ( a) unr edac t ed copi es of herl aw y er s ’ bi l l i ng entr i es , w hi ch cont ai ned det ai l ed des cr i pt i ons of al l char ges , or gani zed bydat e, i ncl udi ng the t i m e i ncr ementbi l l ed, the bi l l i ng r at e, and the t ot al amount foreac h att orneyw or ki ng on hercas e; ( b) copi es of ac tual i nvoi ces r ece i ved fr om her att orney s , w hi ch i ncl uded amount s pai d and amount s out s t andi ng; and ( c) aff i davi t s fr om t he att orney s s et t i ng for th thei rl egal exper i ence and att es t i ng-25-

to th e v e ra c ityo f

th e ir c h a rg e s. M r. S p a lsb u ryfa iled to m a k e a n ysp e c ific
c h a llen g e s to a n yo f

th is in fo rm a tio n a n d n e v e r a rticu late d w h a t els e h e h o p e d to fin d th ro u g h w ritten d isc o v e ry . U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, th e d istric t co u rt d id
n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h is d isc o v e ryre q u e st. T h e sa m e is tru e w ith
r es pectt o hi s r eques tforan evi dent i aryhear i ng. Faced w i th s i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s i n R obi ns on , w e h e ld th a t “[ a ] d istric t co u rt d o e s n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it fa ils to h o ld a h e a rin g a t w h ich th e p a rties w ill sim p lyre itera te
ar gum ent s t heyal r eadyhave made i n thei rbr i efs
. ” 160 F. 3d at1286. Si nce the p l a i n t i ffs fa i l e d t o s h o w th a tt h e ywe r e d e n i e d th e o p p o r tu n i tyt o p r e s e n tn e w, crit ical i n fo rm ati o n , w e u p h eld th e c o u rt ’s de cisi o n n o t t o h o ld an ev iden ti ary h e a r i n g o n t h e a t t o r n e y s ’ fe e i s s u e . F o rth e s a me r e a s o n , we r e a c h th e s a me c o n c lu s io n h e re . T he j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcour tand i t s or derr egar di ng at t orney s ’ fee s a r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge