Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2001/04/00-6396.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:53:07+00:00

Document:
Crudup sued Southerland, Comanche County District Attorney Robert Schulte ("Schulte"), Judge Smith, and the City of Lawton, Oklahoma, alleging they deprived him of his civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 17.) A magistrate judge, liberally construing Crudup's pro se complaint, concluded that he had alleged acts of malicious prosecution, simple negligence, and negligent entrustment. (Doc. 46 at 3.) Adopting a Report and Recommendation prepared by the magistrate, the district court dismissed the actions against the City of Lawton and Southerland for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed the remaining claims against Judge Smith and Schulte, holding they were entitled to absolute immunity from liability. (Doc. 46; Doc. 50.) For substantially the reasons relied upon by the district court, we now AFFIRM.
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We review the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. See Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 1999).
Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend. In determining whether dismissal is proper, we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and we must construe those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Further, we must liberally construe the allegations of a pro se complaint.
Perkins v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
The district court construed Crudup's claim against Lawton as resting solely on its status as Southerland's employer, and dismissed the complaint reasoning that a city cannot be liable for the acts of its employees under § 1983 because of respondeat superior alone. (Doc. 46 at 5.) See Board of County Comm'rs v. Bryan County, Oklahoma, 520 U.S. 397, 405 (1996); Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). We agree, and therefore affirm the district court's order dismissing Crudup's claim against the City of Lawton.
This circuit has held a plaintiff may state a claim under § 1983 for a deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable seizure on the basis of defendant's malicious prosecution of a plaintiff. See Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1561-62 (10th Cir. 1996). "[O]ur circuit takes the common law elements of malicious prosecution as the 'starting point' for the analysis of the § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, but always reaches the ultimate question, which it must, of whether the plaintiff has proven a constitutional violation." Id. at 1561 (emphasis in original). In other words, the evidence ultimately must show that Crudup was subjected to an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id.
The district court, after considering affidavits submitted by the defendants and giving Crudup an opportunity to respond with additional evidence, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that both Schulte and Judge Smith were entitled to absolute immunity from liability on these claims. (Doc. 46 at 6.) We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the district court in determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, and, if not, whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). We liberally construe a pro se litigant's pleadings in conducting our review, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), but we do not consider materials or arguments not presented to the district court, see Myers v. Oklahoma County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 151 F.3d 1313, 1319 (10th Cir. 1998).
We likewise affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Comanche County District Attorney Robert Schulte. First, the evidence shows that Schulte was not personally involved in Crudup's prosecution, and was aware of the case only in his capacity as the prosecuting attorney's supervisor. (Doc. 38, Schulte Affidavit at ¶ 9.) Thus, whatever claims Crudup might have alleged against the assistant district attorney prosecuting his case, the record contains no evidence that would support § 1983 liability on the part of Schulte. Cf. Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 950-51 (10th Cir. 1991) (respondeat superior alone will not support § 1983 liability); Coleman v. Turpen, 697 F.2d 1341, 1346 n.7 (10th Cir. 1982) ("Prosecutor Turpen, to be liable [under § 1983], must have been personally involved in the deprivation."). Further, Schulte enjoys broad immunity for actions taken in his capacity as a prosecutor. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) ("[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983."). This immunity extends to all activities that are "intimately associated with the judicial . . . process." Id. at 430-31; see also Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d 897, 908 (10th Cir. 2000). In this case, all of the actions said to have given rise to Crudup's alleged constitutional injuries were intimately associated with the prosecution's role in bringing criminal charges against Crudup, and therefore they fall within this grant of immunity. Cf. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 428-29 (prosecutor is immune from § 1983 liability for malicious prosecution).
For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Crudup's claim against the City of Lawton and Southerland for failure to state a claim. We further AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. We DENY, however, a motion appended to Southerland's and the City of Lawton's answer brief alleging Crudup's appeal was frivolous and seeking double costs pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38.
2.The district court correctly noted that Crudup alleged a police officer gave perjured testimony during his preliminary hearing, and that Taylor is arguably distinguishable on that basis. (Doc. 46 at 14 n.8; Doc. 45, Affidavit at 1-2.) We agree with the district court, however, that Crudup's blanket statement to that effect, without identifying either the content of the false testimony, the witness who offered the testimony, or the stage of the proceedings in which it was offered, is insufficient to give rise to a genuine question of material fact on this issue. Cf. Northington, 973 F.2d at 1521(court should dismiss claims which are supported only by vague and conclusory allegations).
3.Crudup's affidavit alleges that Judge Smith conducted an ex parte meeting with the assistant district attorney prosecuting Crudup's case, and subsequently imposed an excessive and financially ruinous bond on him. (Doc. 45, Attached Affidavit.) We have noted, however, that "judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability under § 1983 ­ even when the judge allegedly conspires with private parties." Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28-32 (1980)). Therefore, even if we were to conclude that Crudup's allegation was sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether Judge Smith conspired with the assistant district attorney, this would not materially change our analysis of this issue.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 § 1983
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.