Kennedy v. Smith

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 26, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
OLEN KENNEDY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-7035
(D.C. No. 04-CV-249-S)
DARRIN SMITH, Deputy Sheriff (E.D. Okla.)
Muskogee County; PAULA SEXTON,
Muskogee Court Clerk; PEARSON,
Sheriff,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
In this pro se civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Olen
Kennedy, a state prisoner serving life imprisonment, appeals from an order of the
district court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Mr. Kennedy
argues that an anonymous letter accusing him of an additional crime that the
*
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)(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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
defendants circulated to the news media compromised his ability to obtain parole,
thereby violating his constitutional rights.
Mr. Kennedy is also appealing the order of the district court denying his
motion for rehearing and motion to recuse the district court judge. Mr. Kennedy
further complains that the district court did not allow him to conduct sufficient
discovery and failed to appoint counsel to represent him.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we find no merit in Mr.
Kennedy’s arguments and therefore affirm.
I. Background
A. The Anonymous Letter.
In 1973, Mr. Kennedy was convicted of murder under Oklahoma law, and
he is currently serving a life sentence in an Oklahoma state prison. In March
2004, the Muskogee County Court Clerk’s office received an anonymous
hand-written letter in the mail which alleged that Mr. Kennedy had committed
another murder prior to his incarceration. Specifically, the letter stated that
Mr. Kennedy had killed the “10 yr old Nix boy” and hidden his body in the
basement of the “Old Muskogee Hotel.” R., Doc. 165, Ex. 4.
The Court Clerk’s office forwarded the letter to the Muskogee County
Sheriff’s Office. Defendant Sheriff Pearson subsequently assigned defendant
Sheriff Deputy Smith to investigate the allegations in the letter. The investigation
failed to uncover any relevant information, and the Sheriff’s Office decided to
-2-
have the contents of the letter published in two local newspapers. Copies of the
two resulting newspaper articles are attached to Mr. Kennedy’s complaint, and
both articles reported that Mr. Kennedy had been accused by the writer of the
anonymous letter of killing a ten-year-old boy. Id., Doc. 1, Exs. A, B. In
addition, because the writer of the letter refers to very specific facts, Sheriff
Pearson and Deputy Sheriff Smith are quoted in the articles as saying they
believed the letter was “real.” Id. One of the articles also requested that
“[a]nyone with information about the old Muskogee Hotel buried-child case
should call the Muskogee County Sheriff’s Office.” Id., Ex. A. But, as
defendants explain in their brief, “[u]ltimately, the investigation [of the alleged
murder] was inconclusive, no ongoing investigation was deemed necessary and no
charges were filed.” Aplees. Br. at 5.
B. Denial of Parole in October 2004.
The two newspaper articles were published in April 2004. In October
2004, Mr. Kennedy was denied parole by the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board
(Parole Board), and previously he has been denied parole at least ten times during
his term of incarceration. R., Doc. 165, Ex. 2 at 55. Mr. Kennedy testified at his
deposition in February 2007 that he does not know why the Parole Board denied
parole on any of those occasions. Id. at 56. He also testified that he does not
know whether the Parole Board knew about or considered the two newspaper
articles when it denied parole in October 2004. Id. at 62-63, 66-67. In addition,
-3-
the record indicates that, while the district court granted the parties several
months to conduct discovery and Mr. Kennedy submitted written discovery
requests to defendants and attempted to take their depositions, he did not seek any
discovery from the Parole Board.
C. Mr. Kennedy’s § 1983 Claims and the District Court’s Rulings.
In his § 1983 complaint, Mr. Kennedy alleged as follows:
On or about April 1st, 2004 IN CONSPIRACY with each
other, without proper investigation, or verification of facts, the
defendants made libelous, malicious, negligent, vindictive
‘sensationalist’ [tabloid] type false statements AND CAUSED THEM
TO BE PUBLISHED, slandering and defaming the plaintiff, . . . and
did so in a conspiracy to DEPRIVE HIM of a meaningful parole
consideration.
R., Doc. 1 at 2. 1; see also Aplt. Opening Br. at 16 (alleging that defendants
engaged “IN A LONG RUNNING conspiracy to prevent plaintiff from receiving a
state parole”). In short, Mr. Kennedy alleged that defendants Sexton (the
Muskogee County Court Clerk), Sheriff Pearson, and Sheriff Deputy Smith
conspired to defame him by having false information published in the media,
which information demeaned his reputation and caused the Parole Board to deny
parole in October 2004. 2
1
In addition to Sexton, Pearson, and Smith, Mr. Kennedy also named three
Oklahoma newspapers and three Oklahoma television stations as defendants in his
complaint. The district court separately dismissed the claims asserted against the
latter defendants, and those claims are not at issue in this appeal.
2
Although Mr. Kennedy also alleged that the publication of the anonymous
(continued...)
-4-
The district court construed Mr. Kennedy’s allegations as stating both
federal and state law claims, and, after extensive briefing by both sides, the court
entered summary judgment in favor of defendants based on the following
reasoning:
As to the defendant Sexton, plaintiff alleges her sole role in
the underlying events was limited to receiving the anonymous letter
and forwarding it to the Sheriff’s office. As to defendants Pearson
and Smith, plaintiff clearly disagrees with the investigative methods
used to investigate the letter, but he offers no evidence of any
“concerted action” between the defendants to deprive[] him of his
constitutional rights. The role of the Sheriff’s office was to
investigate the allegations made in the letter. This does not appear to
be an unconstitutional goal. In fact, it was their job. Plaintiff must
establish there was an agreement among defendants to deprive him of
a constitutional right. Plaintiff does not even offer conclusory
allegations of a conspiracy. He has failed to establish [there] was an
agreement among defendants to deprive him of his constitutional
rights. Accordingly, his claim must fail.
The civil rights conspiracy claim was the only federal claim in
the lawsuit. The remaining claims are state law in nature. The Tenth
Circuit has held that when federal claims are resolved prior to trial,
the district court should usually decline to exercise jurisdiction over
state law claims and allow plaintiff to pursue them in state court.
Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 669 (10th Cir. 1995) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (stating that when all federal claims are dismissed,
district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over remaining
state claims). Accordingly, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction
2
(...continued)
letter put him at risk of injury from other inmates, he testified at his deposition
that he had not been threatened by any other inmates as a result of the letter’s
publication. R., Doc. 165, Ex. 2 at 65-67, 70-72. Consequently, we do not need
to consider his endangerment allegation.
-5-
over the remaining state law claims. Therefore, the court hereby
dismisses without prejudice this case in its entirety. 3
R., Doc. 175 at 4-5.
II. Analysis
A. Summary Judgment Standards.
“We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). Under
Rule 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
“In applying this standard, we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Burke v. Utah
Transit Auth. & Local 382, 462 F.3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation
omitted).
“In addition, we must construe a pro se appellant’s complaint liberally.”
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). But
3
We note that the district court should have dismissed only the state law
claims without prejudice. Defendants have not cross-appealed to correct this
error, however, and Mr. Kennedy is not challenging the dismissal of his state law
claims. As a result, we do not need to address those claims.
-6-
“[t]his liberal treatment is not without limits, and this court has repeatedly
insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other
litigants.” Id. (quotation omitted). As a result, in the context of opposing a
motion for summary judgment, a pro se plaintiff must strictly comply with the
requirements of Rule 56, and those requirements have been articulated by the
Supreme Court as follows:
the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary
judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against
a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which
that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation,
there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a
complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts
immaterial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e) (providing that a party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the
mere allegations or denials of the . . . party’s pleading, but . . . must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”).
B. Conspiracy/Defamation Claim.
“Allegations of conspiracy may . . . form the basis of a § 1983 claim.”
Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 533 (10th Cir. 1998).
“However, a plaintiff must allege specific facts showing an agreement and
concerted action amongst the defendants,” id., and “[c]onclusory allegations of
conspiracy are insufficient to state a valid § 1983 claim,” id. (quotation omitted).
-7-
Further, “a deprivation of a constitutional right is essential to proceed under a
§ 1983 conspiracy claim.” Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 701-02 (10th Cir.
1990). Thus, to prevail on such a claim, “a plaintiff must plead and prove not
only a conspiracy, but also an actual deprivation of rights.” Dixon v. City of
Lawton, 898 F.2d 1443, 1449 (10th Cir. 1990).
As set forth above, the district court found that Mr. Kennedy “offer[ed] no
evidence of any ‘concerted action’ between the defendants to deprive[] him of his
constitutional rights,” and therefore concluded that he “failed to establish [there]
was an agreement among defendants to deprive him of his constitutional rights.”
R., Doc. 175 at 4. Having thoroughly reviewed the summary judgment record, we
agree with the district court that there is insufficient evidence to establish a
§ 1983 conspiracy. More fundamental, however, is the complete lack of evidence
showing a violation of Mr. Kennedy’s constitutional rights. See Dixon, 898 F.2d
at 1449 (“[T]he essence of a § 1983 [conspiracy] claim is the deprivation of the
right rather than the conspiracy.”).
Construing Mr. Kennedy’s allegations liberally, the constitutional right at
issue here is the right to procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Specifically, Mr. Kennedy claims that defendants violated his
Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process when they allowed the
contents of the anonymous letter to be published in the local media without
affording him a hearing and an opportunity to clear his name by proving that the
-8-
allegations in the letter were false. Consequently, “it is [Mr. Kennedy’s] liberty
interests that are at issue: he alleges that the defendants deprived him of those
interests without affording him the procedural protections required by the Due
Process Clause.” Gwinn, 354 F.3d at 1216. As we explained in Gwinn:
“‘Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity
is at stake because of what the government is doing to him,’ a
protectible liberty interest may be implicated that requires procedural
due process in the form of a hearing to clear his name.” Jensen v.
Redevelopment Agency of Sandy City, 998 F.2d 1550, 1558 (10th Cir.
1993) (quoting Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 . . .
(1971)). Damage to one’s reputation alone, however, is not enough
to implicate due process protections. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.
693, 701 . . . (1976) (stating that “reputation alone, apart from some
more tangible interests such as employment, is neither ‘liberty’ or
‘property’ by itself sufficient to invoke the procedural protection of
the Due Process Clause”); McGhee v. Draper, 639 F.2d 639, 643
(10th Cir. 1981) ([S]tigmatization or reputational damage alone, no
matter how egregious, is not sufficient to support a § 1983 cause of
action.”).
Instead, a plaintiff asserting that the government has violated
the Due Process Clause by impugning his or her “good name,
reputation, honor, or integrity,” Jensen, 998 F.2d at 1558, must
demonstrate that: (1) the government made a statement about him or
her that is sufficiently derogatory to injure his or her reputation, that
is capable of being proved false, and that he or she asserts is false,
and (2) the plaintiff experienced some governmentally imposed
burden that “significantly altered [his or] her status as a matter of
state law.” Paul, 424 U.S. at 710-11 . . . . This is sometimes
described as the “stigma plus” standard.
Id.Here, there is no question the district court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of defendant Sexton. As the court found, “her sole role in the
underlying events was limited to receiving the anonymous letter and forwarding it
-9-
to the Sheriff’s office.” R., Doc. 175 at 4. Further, with regard to defendants
Pearson and Smith, we likewise question whether they actually “made” a
derogatory statement about Mr. Kennedy when they allowed the contents of the
anonymous letter to be published in the local media. However, because
Mr. Kennedy has not even come close to showing the “plus” part of the “stigma
plus” standard (i.e., “some governmentally imposed burden that significantly
altered his . . . status as a matter of state law”), we do not need to decide whether
the “stigma” part of the standard was met.
To begin with, the only “plus” alleged by Mr. Kennedy is his claim that he
was denied parole in October 2004 because of the publication of the contents of
the anonymous letter. But, as set forth above, Mr. Kennedy testified at his
deposition that he does not know why the Parole Board denied parole. R., Doc.
165, Ex. 2 at 55-56. Mr. Kennedy also testified that he does not know whether
the Parole Board even knew about the two newspaper articles when it denied
parole. Id. at 62-63, 66-67. Moreover, while Mr. Kennedy complains
vociferously about how the district court prevented him from deposing the
defendants, Mr. Kennedy never sought any discovery from the Parole Board, and
he also failed to request a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to obtain such
discovery. As a result, there are no “specific facts” in the summary judgment
record showing why the Parole Board denied parole in October 2004. Without
such evidence, it was legally impossible for Mr. Kennedy to meet his trial burden
of satisfying the “plus” part of the “stigma-plus” standard, “an essential element
of [his § 1983 defamation] case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Accordingly, for this
-10-
reason and for the reasons relied upon by the district court, we conclude that
summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendants on Mr. Kennedy’s
conspiracy/defamation claim.
C. Other Issues Raised on Appeal.
Mr. Kennedy also argues that: (1) the district court failed to properly
consider the Errata Sheet he completed to make changes and objections to his
deposition testimony; and (2) the district court erred in: (a) denying his motion to
recuse; (b) denying his motion for appointment of counsel; (c) refusing to compel
defendants to produce discovery and be deposed; and (d) permitting Robert Ray
Jones, Jr. to enter an appearance as counsel for defendants. We conclude that Mr.
Kennedy’s arguments lack merit, and we see no abuse of discretion by the district
court with regard to any of these matters.
First, there is no basis for concluding that the district court failed to
consider the Errata Sheet when evaluating defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. More importantly, however, the Errata Sheet did not contain any
material alterations or additions to Mr. Kennedy’s deposition testimony. Second,
we agree with defendants that Mr. Kennedy’s motion to recuse was based on
conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations, with no specific showing of personal
bias or prejudice. Third, Mr. Kennedy has failed to show that this is one of those
extreme cases where the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel resulted
in fundamental unfairness. Fourth, we see no abuse of discretion by the district
court in any of its discovery rulings. Defendants fully responded to Mr.
Kennedy’s written interrogatories and requests for admission, and none of the
-11-
district court’s discovery rulings had any bearing on Mr. Kennedy’s failure of
proof with regard to the Parole Board. Finally, Mr. Kennedy’s claim that there
was something improper about Mr. Jones’s entry of appearance is completely
baseless and without any foundation.
Mr. Kennedy is also challenging the district court’s denial of his motion for
rehearing. Mr. Kennedy filed his motion within ten days of the district court’s
entry of summary judgment, and, “[r]egardless of how it is styled, a post-
judgment motion filed within ten days of entry of judgment that questions the
correctness of the judgment is properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion.”
Venable v. Haislip, 721 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 1983). “We review a district
court’s ruling on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion under an abuse of discretion
standard.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997). Under that
standard, “[a] Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted
only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.”
Id. (quotation omitted). Mr. Kennedy “has not presented any new evidence on
appeal, nor do we discern manifest error, and thus [he] has failed to show the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motion.” Adams v. Reliance
Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1186 n.5 (10th Cir. 2000).
-12-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We also DENY
Mr. Kennedy’s motion for declaratory judgment and his motion to compel
production of record, both of which were filed in this court on July 27, 2007.
Entered for the Court
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Circuit Judge
-13-