Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 4, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
M AR K JOEL H UN T,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 06-3344
v.
D. Kansas
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.
M ark Hunt filed a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against five
defendants: John Lamb, Regional Director of the Department of Corrections for
the State of Kansas; Francheska Lamb, Juvenile Division Detective for the
Topeka Police Department; Linda R. M itchell, a practicing Kansas attorney; Jean
Schmidt, Shawnee County District Court Judge; Lori Yockers, Administrative
Hearing Officer for Shawnee County District Court; and M ajor Paul M . Gonzales
of the Kansas A rmy National Guard. His complaint alleged the defendants, in
their official and individual capacities, violated H unts civil rights through gross,
malicious abuse of power during his Shawnee County divorce proceeding from
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
-2-
-3-
under 1983. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). M artelon v. Temple,
747 F.2d 1348, 1350-51 (10th Cir. 1984) (Before the passage of 1983, there
was no liability on the part of military superiors for transgressions against the
rights of other military personnel. By the passage of 1983, Congress never
intended to create such rights.).
Finally, defendant M itchell, the lawyer who represented Francheska Lamb
in the divorce and child custody proceedings, was not acting as a representative of
the state or under color of state law. Consequently, she is not subject to suit
under 1983. Garcia v. LeM aster, 439 F.3d 1215, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) (To
state a valid cause of action under 1983, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation
by defendant of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and
law s of the United States w hile the defendant was acting under color of state
law.) (quoting Doe v. Bagan, 41 F.3d 571, 573-74 (10th Cir. 1994)).
A dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915 for failure to state a claim is reviewed
de novo. Trujillo v. William s, 465 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006). W e agree
Hunt failed to state a claim against any defendant. On appeal, Hunt does not
address the district courts findings. Rather, he describes the nature of his appeal
as arising from the appearance of assistance provided to the named defendants
by the U S D istrict C ourt for the District of Kansas. (Appellants Br. at 1.) He
relies on the docket sheet to support his allegation that someone in the district
court must have a). released the information of the filing [of the federal law suit]
-5-
In light of the dismissal of this appeal, all pending motions are denied as
moot.
-6-