F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 9 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
PHIL GIVENS; FRANK JONES;
RICK WILKERSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DAN GLICKMAN, individually and in
his official capacity as the United
States Secretary of Agriculture;
GRANT BUNTRUCK, individually
and in his official capacity as the
National Administrator for the Farm
Service Agency aka Farm Service
Agency; PAUL JOHNSON, 97-7069
individually and in his official (E. Dist. of Oklahoma)
capacity as National Administrator for (D.C. No. 96-CV-647-S)
the Natural Resources Conservation
Service; JOHN STINSEL, individually
and in his official capacity as Deputy
Director of Farm Services Agency aka
Farm Services Agency; PEARLIE
REED, individually and in his official
capacity as Associate Chief of the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service aka Natural Resources
Conservation Service; TERRY
PEACH, individually and in his
official capacity as Farm Service
Agency, Executive Director for the
State of Oklahoma aka Farm Service
Agency aka The State of Oklahoma;
RON CLARK, individually and in his
official capacity as Southwest
Regional Director of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service;
STAR BRYANT, individually and in
his official capacity as the Southwest
Regional Director of the Farm Service
Agency aka Farm Service Agency;
JUDY JOHNSON, individually and in
her official capacity as Regional
Conservationist of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service aka
Natural Resources Conservation;
TINA NUCKOLS, individually and in
her official capacity as District
Director Farm Service Agency aka
Farm Service Agency; LES CONNOR,
individually and in his official
capacity as District Director of the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service aka Natural Resources
Conservation Service; MARTY
DAUGHERTY, individually and in his
official capacity as County Executive
Director Farm Service Agency aka
Farm service Agency; SCOTT PACE,
individually and in his official
capacity as County Executive Director
of Natural Resources Conservation
Service aka Natural Resources
Conservation Service; TED
PATTERSON, individually and in his
official capacity as the Native
American Coordinator for Farm
Service Agency aka Farm Service
Agency; WILLIE D. COOK,
individually and in his official
capacity as Civil Rights and Small
Business Director for the Farm Service
Agency aka Farm Service Agency;
TOM WEBER, individually and in his
2
official capacity as Deputy Chief of
Natural Resources Conservation
Service Programs; JIM SPEARS,
individually and in his official
capacity as County Executive Director
Farm Service Agency, aka Farm
Service Agency,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Phil Givens, Frank Jones, and Rick Wilkerson appeal
the district court’s dismissal of their civil rights complaint brought pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), 1986, 1988, and 2000(d). The complaint
named seventeen federal officials, including the Secretary of Agriculture and
high-ranking officials of the Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, 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
3
Conservation Service. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs “failed to allege specific, substantial, and relevant facts as to
how any of these defendants deprived a plaintiff or plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights of due process and/or equal protection of the law.” Dist. Ct.
Order at 4. This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirms.
This court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lucero v. Gunter, 52
F.3d 874, 877 (10th Cir. 1995).
At the heart of the dispute between the parties on appeal is the following
legal question: is a civil rights complaint against a government official under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or a federal official under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), subject to a heightened pleading standard? The appellants argue that
the Supreme Court rejected such a standard in Leatherman v. Tarrent County, 113
S. Ct. 1160 (1993). The appellants move on to argue that their complaint is
clearly sufficient under the general liberal pleading requirements set out in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
The problem with appellant’s argument, as pointed out by the appellees, is
that Leatherman court limited its abrogation of the heightened pleading standard
to those cases involving municipal liability. In fact, the Leatherman court
4
specifically stated: “We . . . have no occasion to consider whether our qualified
immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in cases involving
government officials.” Id. at 166-67. In response to this language in
Leatherman, this court has expressly indicated that it will continue to apply a
heightened pleading requirement in cases involving individual government
officials. Breidenbach v. Bolish, 126 F.3d 1288, 1292 n.2 (10th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, appellants’ argument that their complaint should be viewed under
the liberal notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is
without merit.
Having concluded that the district court employed the proper standard in
determining whether appellants civil rights complaint sufficiently stated a claim
for relief, this court affirms the district court’s conclusion that appellants’
complaint was insufficiently specific under the heightened pleading standard for
civil rights claims against government officials for substantially the reasons set
forth in the district court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 5, 1997.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
5