Barnett v. Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, 956 F.3d 1228

Background

On Jan. 4, 2018 Barnett alleges two Hall Estill lawyers reported a (false) threat to the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office, which led sheriff deputies to restrict Barnett’s leaving a state-court hearing and the judge to discuss the report in open court.
Barnett sued in state court the next day, asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (unlawful seizure, false light, retaliation) and related state tort claims; defendants removed under federal-question jurisdiction and the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to plead that defendants acted under color of state law, denied Barnett leave to amend, applied the Oklahoma Citizens Participation Act (OCPA) and dismissed the state claims with prejudice, and denied Barnett’s recusal motion; defendants sought OCPA attorney fees.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims (no plausible state action), reversed the OCPA dismissal of the state claims, and remanded with instructions to dismiss them without prejudice or remand to state court; the court did not resolve whether OCPA applies in federal court or the merits of fee entitlement.
The panel explained that when federal claims are dismissed early, comity and prudential concerns ordinarily favor dismissing or remanding supplemental state claims rather than resolving novel state-law issues in federal court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants acted "under color of state law" for § 1983	Barnett: supplying a false threat report and conspiring with AG amounts to joint action/symbiosis	Defendants: they are private actors; furnishing information does not transform them into state actors	Affirmed dismissal — complaint fails to plead facts plausibly showing joint action or a symbiotic relationship; merely providing info is insufficient
Whether the OCPA dismissal procedure applies in federal court	Barnett: OCPA defenses do not bar his state claims; procedural application contested	Defendants: OCPA applies and authorizes early dismissal/fee award	Not decided on the merits; district court applied OCPA but Tenth Circuit reversed the dismissal on comity/supplemental-jurisdiction grounds and remanded to dismiss without prejudice or remand
Whether the district court should have retained and adjudicated OCPA fee question	Barnett: (implicit) fees inappropriate; district court declined to award fees citing "justice and equity"	Defendants: fees are mandatory under OCPA	Court remanded without deciding fee entitlement, noting Oklahoma courts had not resolved a textual ambiguity about the statute’s "justice and equity" clause, so comity counseled leaving the issue to state courts
Whether the judge should have recused	Barnett: judge’s spouse donated to University of Tulsa and court received reports of Barnett’s abusive behavior, creating appearance of bias	Defendants: contributions and adverse events do not require recusal	Affirmed denial of recusal — spouse’s donation was not a direct financial interest or tied to the litigation and adverse rulings/communications do not alone require recusal absent deep-seated bias

Key Cases Cited

Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018) (Tenth Circuit decision declining application of New Mexico anti‑SLAPP statute in federal court and explaining Rules/Enabling Act issues)
Krimbill v. Talarico, 417 P.3d 1240 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017) (describing anti‑SLAPP statutes and OCPA’s purpose and procedure)
Anagnost v. Tomecek, 390 P.3d 707 (Okla. 2017) (Oklahoma Supreme Court discussion of OCPA purpose)
Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (holding D.C. anti‑SLAPP statute cannot be applied in federal court under Federal Rules/Enabling Act analysis)
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Supreme Court plurality/concurrences on whether Federal Rules preempt state procedures)
Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (federal courts should normally dismiss or remand state claims when federal claims are dismissed early)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (pivotal pendent‑jurisdiction and comity principles)
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (1999) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law; private conduct excluded)
Schaffer v. Salt Lake City Corp., 814 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (informing law that merely furnishing information to law enforcement does not establish joint action)
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715 (1961) (symbiotic‑relationship test where government and private actor were interdependent)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (recusal standard: appearance of bias requires deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)