Shelton v. Pittsburg County ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    AUG 12 1997
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    LARRY DON SHELTON,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                          No. 97-7046
    (D.C. No. 97-cv-71-S)
    PITTSBURG COUNTY BOARD OF                                 (E.D. Okla.)
    COMMISSIONERS, also known as
    Pittsburg County District Court,
    District One; PITTSBURG COUNTY
    BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, also
    known as Pittsburg County District
    Court, District Two; PITTSBURG
    COUNTY BOARD OF
    COMMISSIONERS, also known as
    Pittsburg County District Court,
    District Three; OKLAHOMA
    DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
    SERVICES; COLLEEN SHELTON;
    JOHN DOES, any and all other
    persons not known who may become
    known later,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
    citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
    the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Larry Don Shelton appeals the dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    claims against the County Commissioners of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, the
    Oklahoma Department of Human Services, and Colleen Shelton. We affirm.
    We reject plaintiff's assertion that dismissal of his claims denied his
    Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Dismissal of claims before trial does not
    deny a litigant the right to a jury trial. The right to jury trial in a civil action
    exists only where there is some genuine issue of material fact to be determined.
    See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 
    439 U.S. 322
    , 336 (1979); Christensen v.
    Ward, 
    916 F.2d 1462
    , 1466 (10th Cir. 1990). Dismissal of a complaint
    determines issues of law, not issues of fact. See Lucero v. Gunter, 
    17 F.3d 1347
    ,
    1349 (10th Cir. 1994).
    Plaintiff's assertion that dismissal of his claims denied his First Amendment
    right to petition the government for redress of grievances is also without merit.
    -2-
    The only means by which a party may petition the courts for redress is through
    compliance with the federal rules of procedure. These rules have been carefully
    drawn to aid the courts in their determination of justice, and the courts must
    comply with the rules to fulfill their constitutional role. United States v.
    Michigan, 
    460 F. Supp. 637
    , 639 (W.D. Mich. 1978). The district court read
    plaintiff's complaint and the motions and briefs concerning his claims. Plaintiff
    was not prevented from expressing his views in this action.
    The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6). Although we construe pleadings of pro se litigants liberally, mere
    conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are not sufficient to
    state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Riddle v. Mondragon, 
    83 F.3d 1197
    , 1202 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff alleged no facts in his complaint to support
    his claims and, even construed liberally, the complaint does not state any claim
    upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's assertion that the court gave no
    reason for dismissing any claims against Colleen Shelton is unfounded because he
    alleged no facts supporting a claim against her. His assertion that dismissal of his
    claims violates the Supremacy and Oath of Office Clauses of the Constitution is
    also without merit. He has not shown that dismissal violated the Constitution or
    the laws of the United States.
    -3-
    We do not reach any other issues raised by plaintiff because he failed to
    allege any facts supporting any claims against any of the defendants. Even if he
    were to prevail on a particular issue, his failure to allege any facts justified
    dismissal of his complaint.
    AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
    Entered for the Court
    Mary Beck Briscoe
    Circuit Judge
    -4-