Ross G. Dees v. Rogenia Wilson, Robert J. Weatherbie, John I. Taylor, Carl J. Buchman, Bonnie E. Roberts, Betty M. Nichols, Floyd J. Grimes, Brad Fogo, Stephen D. Hill, Richard M. Smith, Ronald Joeckel, Jeff Thompson, Marvin B. Clark, Edward E. Dawson, Scott Botcher, William D. Bright, Lee H. Tetwiler, John A. Wilson, Virgil Basgall, Lisa Baugher, Ray D. Riggs, Jim Conner, George Zakoura, Lawrence Guenther, Charles Schooler, Dan Morgan, David L. Miller, the City of Paola, Kansas

Citations: 13 F.3d 405; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37587; 1993 WL 537746Docket: 93-3031

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; December 22, 1993; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Unpublished opinions may be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue and proper copies are attached or provided to the court and parties, as per the General Order issued on November 29, 1993. In the case of Ross G. Dees v. multiple defendants, the plaintiff was convicted of violating a building code in Paola, Kansas, and subsequently incarcerated for contempt after refusing to pay a fine. Dees later filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging violations of his constitutional rights due to substandard jail conditions. The district court dismissed the 1985 and 1986 claims for failure to state a legitimate claim and, citing absolute and qualified immunity, also dismissed the 1983 claim. Upon appeal, the court reviewed the dismissals de novo and affirmed, noting that Dees’ claim under § 1985 lacked allegations of racial or class-based animus, which are necessary for a viable cause of action under the statute. The court held that the district court's dismissal was appropriate.

The district court properly dismissed Mr. Dees' claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1986 and 1983. The dismissal of the 1986 claim was based on the prerequisite of a valid 1985 claim, which Mr. Dees failed to establish. For the 1983 claim, the court dismissed the claim against defendant Miller due to prosecutorial immunity and the claims against defendants Zakoura, Guenther, Schooler, and Morgan based on absolute immunity. The court alternatively determined that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The review of immunity types was conducted de novo. 

Defendant Miller, the Miami County Attorney, was found to have acted within his prosecutorial duties, thus entitled to prosecutorial immunity. Similarly, defendants Zakoura, Guenther, Schooler, and Morgan were executing a valid court order regarding Mr. Dees' incarceration, granting them absolute immunity. As both types of immunity were upheld, the court did not address the qualified immunity issue. All of Mr. Dees' arguments were rejected, and the district court's dismissal of his claims was affirmed. The ruling is non-precedential within the Tenth Circuit except for specific legal doctrines. Additionally, the panel determined that oral arguments were unnecessary for the appeal's resolution. Background details include Mr. Dees' conviction for a building code violation, subsequent contempt of court, and his civil rights action alleging constitutional rights violations due to jail conditions.

The district court dismissed Mr. Dees' claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 for failing to state a valid claim, citing that he did not allege the necessary racial or class-based discriminatory animus required under § 1985. Consequently, the claim under § 1986 was also dismissed since it relies on the existence of a valid § 1985 claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Dees' § 1983 claim, stating that the defendant Miller was entitled to prosecutorial immunity, as there were no allegations of actions outside his prosecutorial duties. Defendants Zakoura, Guenther, Schooler, and Morgan were found to have absolute immunity for executing a valid court order to incarcerate Mr. Dees. As a result, the court did not need to consider qualified immunity. All of Mr. Dees' arguments were rejected, and the dismissal was affirmed. This order holds no precedential value except for specific legal doctrines. No oral argument was deemed necessary for the appeal.