Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ZACHARY R. E. RUSK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-4044
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00976-RJC)
PAUL WARNER, (D. Utah)
Defendant - Appellee.
Zachary Rusk appeals the district courts dismissal of his complaint against
the Honorable Paul Warner, Chief Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for
This case began when Mr. Rusk, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
*
After examining the brief 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(f); 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not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
alleges that Judge Warner made defamatory statements about Mr. Rusk when
claim, violated his constitutional rights. Mr. Rusk then asked the court to issue
protected classes.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. See
a claim for injunctive relief. While acknowledging that this court has not yet
decided whether judicial immunity extends so far, the district court found
As an initial matter, we do not think that Mr. Rusks complaint meets the
Court has said that a complaint must offer more than mere conclusory
statements and must state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
factual allegations. Id. at 679. Mr. Rusks complaint, however, contains almost
no facts. He claims that Judge Warner defamed him but fails to provide any
detail about what Judge Warner supposedly said. The lengthy exhibits attached to
his complaint shed no light on the matter either. Moreover, the complaint never
explains how Judge Warners statements violated Mr. Rusks constitutional rights
-2-
Even had the complaint included more details, Mr. Rusk has given us no
legal basis to reverse the district courts ruling on judicial immunity. Other than
Mr. Rusks brief contains no legal argument on this point. And his position runs
counter to the decisions of several other circuits that have granted absolute
See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000); Mullis v. U.S. Bankr.
Court for the Dist. of Nev., 828 F.2d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987); Kipen v.
DENY Mr. Rusks motion to proceed without prepayment of fees because he has
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Judge
-3-