Phan v. Cross
17-1186
| 10th Cir. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Kent Vu Phan appealed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the ADA, and the district court also denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
- Phan had previously lost two state-court lawsuits and then sued the state-court judges and opposing counsel in federal court challenging those state-court proceedings.
- The district court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and concluded the appeal was not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
- The court found judicial immunity barred claims against the judges unless they acted outside their judicial capacity or wholly without jurisdiction, doctrines Phan did not meaningfully contest on appeal.
- The court dismissed claims against the attorney defendants as frivolous because Phan failed to allege (1) concerted action with government officials under § 1983, (2) any contractual relationship under § 1981, or (3) ADA discrimination in a covered area of public life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial immunity bars Phan’s claims against state-court judges | Phan contends judges acted “under color of state law” in individual capacities and thus can be sued | Judges are protected by judicial immunity unless acting outside their judicial capacity or in complete absence of jurisdiction | Affirmed: judicial immunity bars these claims; Phan did not show the exceptions apply |
| Whether attorney defendants are entitled to dismissal as frivolous | Phan argues attorneys aren’t entitled to qualified immunity (thus implying liability) | District court dismissed for failure to allege § 1983 concert, § 1981 contractual relationship, or ADA-covered discrimination | Affirmed: claims frivolous for lack of legally sufficient allegations |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Phan challenges dismissal as improper | District court exercised sua sponte dismissal authority for frivolous IFP suits | Affirmed: dismissal appropriate; claims legally frivolous |
| Whether Phan may proceed IFP on appeal | Phan seeks IFP status on appeal | District court found appeal not taken in good faith because arguments are frivolous | Denied: IFP on appeal refused for lack of non-frivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity bars suits for judicial acts absent lack of jurisdiction)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (judicial immunity only overcome if judge acted outside jurisdiction or judicial capacity)
- Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for dismissals reviewed de novo)
- Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015) (appellant’s failure to explain error in district court reasoning can justify affirmance)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (IFP granted only when appellant makes rational, non-frivolous arguments)
- James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2013) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but court will not act as advocate)