Unpublished Decisions; One Results in Remand on Fourth Amendment Civil Rights Claim

Edge v. Payne, August 20, 2009, No. 08-7122: Plaintiff filed suit against a dead judge, another judge, the county clerk, court reporter, court secretary, DA, a bunch of ADAs, the sheriff, undersheriff, various deputy sheriffs, several ATF agents, an unnamed Highway Patrol officer, and 25 "DOES" for good measure, in short, everyone remotely involved in his contentious divorce and subsequent criminal proceedings when he was convicted of possessing a firearm while under a protective order. He alleged various constitutional violations against the defendants, basically complaining that they were all engaged in a conspiracy against him. He separately alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his property was searched and the search turned up the gun that resulted in the federal prosecution. He acknowledged that his girlfriend consented, but alleged it was as the result of coercion.

The Tenth agrees with the district court that the claims against the judicial officers and prosecutors were properly dismissed because they had absolute immunity for actions taken in the course of their duties. The conspiracy claims were also properly dismissed. However, the district court had not addressed the Fourth Amendment claim separately. This claim appeared to set forth necessary allegations of a constitutional violation, and the cause was remanded for the district court to further consider it.

Brantley v. Sirmons, No. 09-6032 (August 20, 2009): The court denies a COA to this state petitioner convicted of drug charges based on apparently overwhelming evidence of a meth lab. The only interesting point is that, in a footnote, the court observes that the petitioner was concerned that the judges were not reading his briefs. As a test, he apparently included a paragraph that asked the court to acknowledge that the court had read the paragraph and, thus, the brief. The district court did not make such an acknowledgement, leading the petitioner to assert the district court had not read his brief. The COA disagreed: the court did not have to accede to the petitioner's wishes, and it's failure to do so "in no way suggests that the court is not faithfully carrying out its duties."