Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, State of Colorado, 71-1702.
| Decision Date | 30 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1702.,71-1702. |
| Parties | William F. COOPERSMITH, and all Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William F. Coopersmith, pro se.
Jack E. Hanthorn, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., and John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., of Colo., with him on the brief), for appellee Courts.
Michael A. Sabian, Denver, Colo. (D. Craig Lewis, and Pendleton, Sabian, Guthery & Lewis, P. C., Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for appellee, Colo. Bar Ass'n.
Before HILL, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The complaint in this action names as the only defendants the "Supreme Court State of Colorado," "Court of Appeals State of Colorado," "District Court, Grand County, State of Colorado," and "Colorado Bar Association, a Corporation." The complaint alleges that it is an action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986. The plaintiff is a resident of Colorado who received his law degree from the University of South Dakota in 1926, but is not admitted to practice in Colorado. The allegations in the complaint refer generally to the attempts by the defendants to make it difficult for the plaintiff to appear pro se and to make it difficult for him when he so appears.
The allegations of the complaint state conclusions as to the defendant Bar Association, that it is a "closed corporation," that the Supreme Court of Colorado is "unconstitutional," and that the Colorado lawyers and judges are not skillful. Plaintiff also asserts that he has not been permitted to withdraw files or transcripts from the Clerk's offices. Plaintiff's prayer for relief is:
The defendants filed motions to dismiss, asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim. The defendants urged that the allegations were unrelated to the claim for relief, that they were a statement of plaintiff's personal opinions as to defendants, and could not serve as a basis for relief. It was also urged that none of the defendants were "persons" under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1988, and in any event the "court" defendants were immune from suit.
The trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, and plaintiff has taken this appeal. We find no error in the dismissal of the action by the trial court.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and especially Rule 8(a) (2), a complaint must state the basis for the claim asserted. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, and Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F.2d 54 (10th Cir.). Of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hobson v. Wilson
...1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1977) (complaint must contain specific factual allegations to support claim of conspiracy); Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, 465 F.2d 993, 994 (10th Cir.1972) (under federal rules, complaint must state factual basis for claim asserted).88 See 5 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERA......
-
Martinez v. Winner
...which is the subject matter of § 1985(1). That section is excluded from further consideration. 78 In Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, State of Colorado, 465 F.2d 993, 994 (10th Cir. 1972), the Court of Appeals reminds us under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and especially Rule 8(a)(2), ......
-
Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
...Nickens v. White, 536 F.2d 802 (8th Cir. 1976), Hughes v. Ranger Fuel Corp., 467 F.2d 46 (4th Cir. 1972), Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, State of Colorado, 465 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1972), Morris v. Alabama State Department of Industrial Relations, 435 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1970). 11 See, for exa......
-
Arnold v. Board of Educ. of Escambia County Ala.
...door. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 736, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). Indeed, the Supreme court has recognized that "[t]he vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools." S......