Court Opinion

ID: 9926634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 16:01:33.162402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:53.534877
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3156     Document: 010110989785        Date Filed: 01/25/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          January 25, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
 SIDNEY W. CLARK,

       Plaintiff - Appellant,

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

       Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              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 examining 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 argument. As explained below,

 we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this case. Sidney W. Clark fails to state a

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
 of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
 its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3156    Document: 010110989785         Date Filed: 01/25/2024     Page: 2

 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 the state correctional facility in Norton,

 Kansas. He filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, seeking five million dollars and

 alleging that clerks of a state court interfered with his access to the courts by refusing

 to file pro se documents that 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 reasons for doing so, it concluded the state court clerks

 were entitled to absolute immunity because they performed judicial functions. The

 court also denied Clark’s motion to reconsider. This timely appeal 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 Cir. 2001). The issues Clark

 raises on appeal each revolve around the district court’s conclusion that Clark failed

 to state a claim in his amended complaint because the defendants—state court clerks

 who performed a judicial function—have quasi-judicial immunity 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 Clark’s suit. In addition to dismissing this
                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-3156    Document: 010110989785         Date Filed: 01/25/2024        Page: 3

       Tenth Circuit precedent forecloses the § 1983 relief Clark seeks. We have

 long recognized that court clerks enjoy “derivative” absolute 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 defendants are entitled to judicial 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 part of the judicial process are absolutely

 immune from liability for their judicial acts even if their exercise of authority is

 flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.” (cleaned up)).

       In response, Clark attempts to argue that the defendants here performed

 ministerial duties, not judicial ones, which renders them liable in an individual

 personal capacity. True, this Court has recognized that some courts only award

 qualified immunity to court clerks who perform “ministerial and non-discretionary”

 tasks as opposed to “quasi-judicial” or “judicial acts.” Henriksen v. Bentley, 644

 F.2d 852, 855–56 (10th 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 counsel. Because this Court affirms based on
 the ground that the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity, we need not
 address Clark’s argument against the district court’s alternative 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”).
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-3156    Document: 010110989785           Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 4

       However, this Court has since weighed in on what clerk functions attain

 judicial immunity. See, e.g., Trackwell, 472 F.3d at 1247 (“In the 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 clerk is considered the functional equivalent

 of the judge and enjoys derivative immunity.”). And here, the state court clerks

 performed a judicial function—again, one that this Court has already recognized—

 controlling what filings come before a court. Id.

                                         III.

       For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment 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

                                            4