Phan v. Volz

Appellate Case: 21-1199 Document: 010110640336 Date Filed: 02/02/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 2, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
KENT VU PHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-1199
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00965-LTB-GPG)
ELIZABETH B. VOLZ, Judge; DANIEL (D. Colo.)
T. JACOBS, Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Plaintiff Kent Vu Phan appeals pro se from the dismissal of his lawsuit against
Defendants Elizabeth Beebe Volz, a state court judge in Arapahoe County, Colorado,
and Daniel T. Jacobs, whom Judge Volz appointed as guardian ad litem to protect
Mr. Phan’s interests in state-court lawsuits he filed in 2018. The district court
dismissed Mr. Phan’s claims based on judicial immunity, and we affirm.
*
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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 21-1199 Document: 010110640336 Date Filed: 02/02/2022 Page: 2
We review determinations of absolute immunity de novo.” Perez v. Ellington,
421 F.3d 1128, 1133 (10th Cir. 2005). Although we review a pro se litigant’s
pleadings liberally, we will not “take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s
attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005).
A judge acting in her judicial capacity is absolutely immune from civil rights
claims “unless the judge acts clearly without any colorable claim of jurisdiction.”
Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court held Judge
Volz was entitled to absolute immunity, and Mr. Phan has not meaningfully
challenged that holding on appeal. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (“Under [Fed. R.
App. P.] 28, which applies equally to pro se litigants, a brief must contain more than
a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.”).
The courts have extended absolute immunity to other officials, including
guardians ad litem, “who perform functions closely associated with the judicial
process.” Dahl v. Charles F. Dahl, M.D., P.C. Defined Ben. Pension Tr., 744 F.3d
623, 630 (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). This defense is called
“quasi-judicial immunity” when applied to non-judges. Id. The district court held
that quasi-judicial immunity protected Mr. Jacobs from Mr. Phan’s lawsuit, and
Mr. Phan again has not argued otherwise on appeal.
We conclude that the district court correctly dismissed Mr. Phan’s lawsuit on
these grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Mr. Phan’s claims against
Judge Volz and Mr. Jacobs. We deny Mr. Phan’s motion for leave to proceed in
2
Appellate Case: 21-1199 Document: 010110640336 Date Filed: 02/02/2022 Page: 3
forma pauperis. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir.
2005) (on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the movant must show not only an
inability to pay, but also “the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the
law and facts”). Mr. Phan’s pending motion to dismiss this appeal is deficient and he
has not corrected the deficiency as requested by the Court. The motion is therefore
denied.
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
3