T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly25,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

A N TH O N Y LEW I S, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. DAVI D M I KE S I C; S T AT E OF K A N SA S, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3089 (D i stri ctof K ansas) ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 4 0 8 1 - J AR)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s . A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s courthas det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

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. Pr ocee di ng pro se , A nthonyL ew i s appea l s the d i stri ctcou rt ’s su a sp o n te di s m i s s al of the ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nthe br oughtpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983.-2-

L ew i s fi l ed the ac t i on agai ns tD avi d M i kes i c, a K ans as pr obat e j udge, and the S t a t e o f Ka n s a s . I n h i s c o mp l a i n t , Le wi s a l l e g e d J u d g e M i k e s i c “ d e p r i v e d [ h i m] of hi s per s onal m utual fund ac count. . . w i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw ” and “cont i nual l ys ends W y andott e C ountySher i ff D eput i es t o [hi s ] hous e forno ap p are n t r ea so n . ” A lth o u g h h is spe cific c lai m s ag ains t th e S tat e o f K an sas a re notexpl i ci t l yart i cul at ed i n t he compl ai nt , L ew i s as s er t s defe ndant s ’ act i ons vi ol at ed hi s Fi fth and Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s . L ew i s s oughtuns peci fi ed m onet arydamages and an or derpr ohi bi t i ng J udge M i kes i c fr om havi ng any fu rth er c o n tact w ith h im “w h ethe r w ri tt en , o ral or third p arty . ” T h e d istri ct co u rt di s m i s s ed the s ui tw i t h pr ej udi ce, ci t i ng t he El eventh A m endment , the R oo kerFeldm an doctr i ne, and Lew i s ’ fai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m forr el i ef. L ew i s then br oughtt hi s appea l . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derr el i ed on § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , w e appl ya de novo s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w in th is c a s e . See Perki ns v. Kan sas D ept. of C orr ., 1 6 5 F .3 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s form onet arydamages a ss e rte d a g a in st th e S tate o f K a n sa s a n d a g a in st J u d g e M ik e sic w h ile a c tin g in h is offi ci al capa ci t ybeca us e “ne i t hera St at e nori t s offi ci al s act i ng i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es ar e ‘ per s ons ’ ” aga i ns tw hom a cl ai m fordamages can be br ought pur s uantt o § 1983. Wi l lv. Mi ch. D ep’ tof Stat e Pol i ce , 4 9 1 U .S . 5 8 , 7 1 (1 9 8 9 ). Fur t her , j udi ci al i m m uni t ybar s L ew i s ’ cl ai m s form onet arydamages as s er t ed a g a in st J u d g e M ik e sic . A sta te ju d g e is a b so lu telyim m u n e f ro m § 1 9 8 3 liab ili tyL ew i s di d nots eek pr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tt he St at e of 1 K ansas. -3- exce ptw hen he a ct s “i n t he cl earabs ence of al l j ur i s di ct i on. ” St ump v. Sparkm an , 4 3 5 U . S . 3 4 9 , 3 5 7 (19 7 8 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a j udge ac t ed “i n t he cl earabs ence of j ur i s di ct i on, ” w e l ook “t o the natur e of the a c t its e lf, i . e. , w hetheri ti s a func t i on nor m al l yper form ed bya j udge, and t o the e x p e c ta tio n s o f

th e p a rt ie s , i . e. , w hethertheydeal tw i th the j udge i n hi s j udi ci al capa ci t y . ” Id . at36 2. L ew i s al l eges Jud ge M i kesi c “has u sed his po si t i on as a j udge” t o har as s and i nt i m i dat e hi m . B eca us e Lew i s ’ cl ai m s ar e bas ed on ac t i ons tak e n b yJu d g e M ik e sic a s a ju d icia l o ffice r a n d b e c a u se L e w is h a s fa iled to demonstr at e thatJ udge M i kes i c ac t ed i n the cl earabs ence of j ur i s di ct i on, J udge M ik e s ic is e n title d to a b s o lu te ju d ic ia l im m u n ity. T his l eaves o nlyL ew i s’ cl ai m for prospect i ve inj un ct i ve rel i ef ag ai nst J udge M i kes i c. See Pul l i am v. A l l en , 466 U . S. 522, 541- 42 ( 1984) ( hol di ng 1 “j udi ci al i m m uni t yi s nota bart o pr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns ta j udi ci al offi ceract i ng i n herj udi ci al capa ci ty ”) . L ew i s s eeks an or derbarr i ng J udge M ik e sic “ f

ro m h a v in g a n yf

u rth e r c o n tac t” w ith h im . L e w is la c k s s tan d in g to pur s ue hi s cl ai m forpr os pect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef be caus e he ha s fai l ed t o al l ege h e w ill lik e lyb e su bjec t to Ju d g e M ik e sic ’s a lleg e d u n c o n stitu tio n a l co n d u c t in th e f u tu re . Har r is v. C hampi on , 5 1 F .3 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 7 (1 9 9 5 ) (“ ‘P a st e x p o su re to i l l egal conductdoes noti n i t s el f s how a pr es entcas e orcontr over s yr egar di ng-4-

i njunct i ve rel i ef, . . . i f un accom pan i ed b yanycon t i nu i ng , presentadv ers e effect s . ’ ”) . T he cl ai m s s etouti n L ew i s ’ compl ai ntappea rt o be bas ed on ac t i ons ta k e n b yJ u d g e M ik e s ic w h ile p re s id in g o v e r a s ta te m a tte r i n v o lv in g L e w is . L ew i s has fai l ed t o as s ertt hatt hi s m at t eri s curr ent l ypendi ng befor e J udge M i kes i c orexpl ai n how he i s l i kel yt o be i nvol ved i n anyfutur e ac t i ons over w hi ch J udge M i kes i c w i l l pr es i de. T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssi ng L ew i s’ com plai nt i s affi rm ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

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