Rodrock v. Foulston

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 12, 1998
Docket97-3350
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rodrock v. Foulston (Rodrock v. Foulston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodrock v. Foulston, (10th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 1998 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk

JACK LANE, RODROCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

NOLA T. FOULSTON, District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, State of Kansas; ROBERT C. BELL, Judge; PAUL BUCHANAN, Judge; MICHAEL CORRIGAN, Judge; DAVID W. DEWEY, Judge; CLARK V. OWENS, Judge; DOUGLAS R. No. 97-3350 ROTH, First Deputy District Attorney; (D.C. No. 97-1257 - JTM) MARK A. JORDAN, Assistant District (District of Kansas) Attorney; CHRISTINE M.T. LADNER, Assistant District Attorney; MICHAEL D. HILL, Sheriff; DONALD E. LAMBDIN; LUCY L. HERLOCKER; SUSAN MUELLER; RON RUGG, Judge; JAMES MATHUES GUY; MICHAEL MEULLER; SAM HOUSTON, Sargent; DOUG WITSON, Sheriff,

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

After examining appellant’s brief and the 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(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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 This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, (continued...) Before BALDOCK, EBEL and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

In this civil rights suit against a plethora of judges, lawyers and sheriffs, we

are left with utterly no idea from reading Jack Lane, Rodrock’s 1 verified

complaint what particular events or conduct allegedly deprived him of the laundry

list of constitutional and common law rights he asserts in this case. As a result,

we must affirm the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) because Rodrock’s suit fails to meet the “plain statement” requirement

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Background

Rodrock filed his verified complaint pro se against six judges, four

prosecutors, two sheriffs, one sheriff’s department sergeant, three private practice

attorneys, and a married couple living in Wichita, Kansas. (See R., Doc. #1,

Compl. at 2.) The most that can be gathered from Rodrock’s allegations is the

following: On March 8, 1996, Judge David W. Dewey issued an order to

* (...continued) 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.

In all of his filings both in the district court below and in this court, 1

Mr. Rodrock has used a comma after his middle name. We will conform this Order & Judgment to his appellation.

-2- incarcerate Rodrock because of a dispute in a child support case emanating from

the dissolution of Rodrock’s marriage to the now-remarried Susan Mueller. 2 (See

id. at 4, ¶ 7.) On October 28, 1996, Judge Clark V. Owens issued a bench warrant

for Rodrock, and on March 21, 1997, Judge Paul Buchanan remanded Rodrock to

jail. (See id. at 3-4, ¶¶ 5-6.)

Out of these three bare facts, Rodrock has alleged a vast superstructure of

constitutional claims, citing the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth,

Eleventh, and Thirteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(See id. at 4, ¶¶ 6-7, 9-10.) Furthermore, reading Rodrock’s complaint as

generously as possible, he appears also to be asserting a conspiracy by the

defendants to deny him the equal protection, privileges and immunities of the

laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). 3 (See id. at 5, ¶¶ 12-15.) Finally, Rodrock’s

complaint includes an itemized list of “counts” against the various groups of

2 Additional materials submitted with Rodrock’s summary judgment motion indicate that Rodrock was held in contempt of court for his failure to make substantial payments toward an accumulated child support debt of more than $14,000. (See R., Doc. # 32, “Dewey Ex. # 2” (Tr. of Proceeding in Case No. 89- D-3144, March 8, 1996), at 7.) Although these additional summary judgment materials provide some context to help us decipher Rodrock’s pleadings in this case, we have found nothing in them that alters our conclusion below that Rodrock can allege no set of facts upon which relief may be based. 3 Our interpretation of Rodrock’s complaint on this point stems from his repetitive citations to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(2), a jurisdictional statute that merely provides the federal courts with subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

-3- defendants, and on the basis of these “counts” Rodrock has demanded a total of

$35.6 million from the defendants, that is, $200,000 for each count against each

defendant plus an additional $2 million from Sheriff Hill and Sergeant Houston. 4

All of the defendants responded to Rodrock’s complaint by arguing that it

violated Rule 8(a)’s requirement of a “short and plain statement” of the claims,

and they filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or in the alternative for a

more definite statement under Rule 12(e). (See R., Doc. # 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18,

19, 22.) Finding that Rodrock’s complaint was “a rambling, incoherent series of

Rodrock’s complaint lists the following “counts”: 4

Against the defendant judges - “Perjury of Oath,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Chilling Effect Doctrine,” “Conspiracy,” “Constitutional Tort,” “Defamation of Character,” and “Collusion.” Against defendant prosecutors - “Perjury of Oath,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Chilling Effect Doctrine,” “Conspiracy,” “Extortrio (Legal),” “Fiduciary Misconduct,” “Malpractice,” “Defamation of Character,” and “Collusion.” Against the defendant private attorneys - “Perjury of Oath,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Chilling Effect Doctrine,” “Conspiracy,” “Extortrio (Legal),” “Fiduciary Misconduct,” “Malpractice,” and “Collusion.” Against Sheriff Hill and Sergeant Houston - “Perjury of Oath,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Chilling Effect,” “Conspiracy,” “Slander,” and “Defamation of Character.” Against Sheriff Witson - “Perjury of Oath,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Chilling Effect Doctrine,” and “Conspiracy.” Against Mr. and Mrs. Mueller - “Defamation of Character,” “Deprivation of Rights,” “Duress,” “Tort,” “Conspiracy,” “Collusion,” and “Mallice” [sic].

-4- generalizations,” the district court dismissed the complaint for violating Rule

8(a). (See R., Doc. # 36, Mem. & Order, at 2.) The court also found that the

complaint was barred by the absolute or qualified immunity of all the defendants.

(See id. at 3.)

Rodrock filed a timely notice of appeal, (see R., Doc. # 47), and his brief

on appeal appears to assert a single issue, i.e., whether the district court violated

the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in all suits at common law for

damages of more than $20, (see Aplt. Br. at 6). In light of our obligation to

construe pro se pleadings generously, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972), we believe that Rodrock’s appeal should be interpreted as raising the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories
630 F.2d 1383 (Tenth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodrock v. Foulston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrock-v-foulston-ca10-1998.