Harris v. Champion
| Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-5039,Nos. 94-5038,s. 94-5038 |
| Citation | 51 F.3d 901 |
| Parties | Anthony Jerome HARRIS, Gary Middaugh, Theodore Ford, Doyle King, Randy Meyer, Terry Crisp, Michael Farmer, John Honeycutt, Coy Hill, Troy Brown, Deems Rowell, Gordon Bunton, Adam Wright, Robert Manous, Kimball Foreman, Joe Headrick, Terry Steward, Arthur Blackmon, James Smith, Stephen Ross, Johnny Smith, Larry Brown, Walter Robinson, Roger Williams, Kenneth Owens, Marshall Gee, Kelly Craig, Gilbert Payne, Danny Green, Calvin Eslick, Paul Rogers, Michael Smith, Nathaniel Jackson, Johnny Romo, Jeffery Lea, Johnny Davis, Chester Watkins, Ricky Wyatt, Aron Cox, Nero Tecumseh, Joseph Osborne, Joseph Dicesare, William Knittel, James McClain, Eddie Coats, Walter Bowers, Huey Hall, Ronnie Moore, Shane Boggs, Willie Taylor, Clarence Bramlett, Bruce Hill, Larry Ives, Donald Myles, Kevin Cole, Larry Crawley, Edward Teichman, Keith Larkins, Leonard Goudeau, Joel Vanscoy, Robert Richards, Michael Broadnax, Rufus McGee, Kyle Cheadle, Steve Seitz, Timothy Whipkey, Adrian Collins, William Severe, Robert Brixey, Kevin Parker, Lloyd Harjo, Kenneth Burrell, Louis Washington, David Copple, Fred Cook, Robert Schneider, Joel Allen, Boyce Vandenburg, Jerry Stiles, Tony Abney, Jackie L. Adair, Robert Anderson, Ascension Armendariz, Larry Bailey, Charles Barnett, Rogelio Bege, J.C. Berry, Lavern Berryhill, Perry Biffle, Jackie Blanton, Douglas Breeden, Gregory Brians, Arthur Brown, Bobby Bruce, Derek Burger, Larry Butcher, John Byrd, James Cagle, Clifford Campbell, Douglas Capps, Gerald Carroll, Toriano Chandler, Joe Chase, Clyde Chuculate, Joseph Cloud, Johnny Cole, Pam Colley, Ronald D. Cooper, Dennis Cornell, Cyndi Cornell, Germaine Crawford, Rickie Crisp, James Crow, Gerald Daniels, Brian Daniels, Richard Demes, Ronnie Dial, Alfonso Duran, Larry Edwards, Andrew Ephriam, James L. Evans, J.W. Fatherree, Lance Foster, Donnie Joe Frye, Dennis Gaines, Louis Gibson, Ronnie Gilmore, James Godbey, Forest Golbek, Jerry Graham, Lantze Green, Bryan Griffin, James Hamilton, David P. Hammer, Lauren |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Anthony Jerome Harris, pro se.
John E. Dowdell, Norman & Wohlgemuth, Tulsa, OK, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Susan B. Loving, Atty. Gen. of Okl., Lisa Tipping Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, OK, for defendants-appellees Wardens, State of Okl. and Atty. Gen. of Okl.
J. Warren Jackman and William A. Caldwell, Pray, Walker, Jackman, Williamson & Marlar, Tulsa, OK, and Gary Peterson, Oklahoma City, OK, for defendants-appellees Okl. Indigent Defense System.
John M. Imel and John E. Rooney, Jr., Moyers, Martin, Santee, Imel & Tetrick, Tulsa, OK, and Gail L. Wettstein, Oklahoma City, OK, for defendants-appellees Okl. Court of Crim. Appeals.
Before BRORBY, LOGAN, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-appellants, all of whom were convicted of felonies in Oklahoma and were represented by defendant-appellee Oklahoma Indigent Defense System (OIDS) on their direct appeals in state court, brought suit asserting habeas and civil rights claims against defendants-appellees as a result of allegedly unconstitutional delay by the state in adjudicating plaintiffs' direct criminal appeals. Plaintiffs alleged that inordinate and unjustified delay by the OIDS in filing briefs on their behalf and similar delay by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in adjudicating their appeals, once briefed, deprived them of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection, as well as their Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.
We described much of the history of this action in Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1548-54 (10th Cir.1994), wherein we addressed plaintiffs' habeas claims against the defendant wardens. Today we consider plaintiffs' claims against the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals and the individual judges thereof (collectively, the Oklahoma Court defendants), as well as their claims against the OIDS, the past and present board members of the OIDS, and two administrators of the OIDS, who also acted as defense counsel for certain plaintiffs in their direct criminal appeals (collectively, the OIDS defendants). 1
By order entered December 27, 1993, the district court disposed of all plaintiffs' claims against the Oklahoma Court defendants and the OIDS defendants, and also denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add the Attorney General as a party-defendant and to add a claim against certain defendants under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act. The district court certified its rulings on the claims against the Oklahoma Court defendants and the OIDS defendants for immediate appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), but did not so certify its ruling on the motion to amend. Plaintiffs' notices of appeal 2 purport to appeal only the two rulings certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). In their reply brief on appeal, however, plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in denying the motion to amend.
Plaintiffs neither designated the denial of the motion to amend in their notices of appeal, see Fed.R.App.P. 3(c) (), nor secured a Rule 54(b) certification of that ruling. We need not determine whether we have jurisdiction to review the ruling despite these inadequacies, however, because plaintiffs abandoned their challenge to the ruling by failing to argue it in their opening briefs on appeal. See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 25 F.3d 1493, 1506-07 (10th Cir.1994) (). We turn, then, to the district court's rulings on the motions of the Oklahoma Court defendants and the OIDS defendants.
Appeals and the individual judges.
The Oklahoma Court defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against them on several grounds. First, they argued that neither the court nor the individual judges were proper parties to the habeas claims, because they were not plaintiffs' custodians. As to plaintiffs' civil rights claims, the court contended that it was not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and, therefore, was not amenable to suit under that statute. The judges, in turn, contended that they were absolutely immune from any claims for money damages. They also argued that because all the briefs had been filed on behalf of plaintiffs in the criminal appeals...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ANDRE v. MORIARTY
... ... Page 13 See Frierson-Harris v. Kall, 2006 WL 2373231, at *1 (7th Cir. 2006) (" ... judges generally 'agree' with one side in litigation when ruling against the other; such ... Bissonnette, 154 F. Supp. 2d 95, 105 (D. Mass. 2001) (Stearns, J.) citing Polk, 454 U.S. at 325, Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 909-10 (10th Cir. 1995), and quoting Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 n.6 (1983). Accordingly, Count VII of the complaint is ... ...
-
Dunker v. Bissonnette
... ... § 1983. See Polk v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981); Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 909-910 (10th Cir.1995). Even when the defective performance of the state appointed attorney causes "the trial process to ... ...
-
Darsch v. Lynch
... ... Stearns) (citing Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981), and Harris v.Champion , 51 F.3d 901, 909-10 (10th Cir. 1995)). See Malachowski v. City of Keene , 787 F.2d 704, 710 (1st Cir. 1986) ("A private attorney who ... ...
-
Dunlevy v. Stidham
... ... Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 104 S.Ct. 1970, 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984). See Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir.1995). IV. We turn finally to Judge Stidham's contention that the district court erred in preliminarily ... ...
-
Immunity Under Section 1983
...& Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993). [FN36]. Judicial immunity covers appellate judges as well as trial judges. Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 1994). [FN37]. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11. [FN38]. 484 U.S. at 219. [FN39]. Id. at 227-29. [FN40]. Mireles, 502 U.S. at 12-13. ......