F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 16 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________ PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
EUGENE JOSEPH KARLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-3303
(D. Kan.)
J. THOMAS MARTEN, U.S. District Judge; (D.Ct. No. 97-1172-WEB)
PATRICK F. KELLY, U.S. District Judge;
MARTIN M. SHOEMAKER; RONALD L.
LAMBERT; JOHN STUBBS; MICHAEL E.
POSEY; SARA PARSCALE; BILLY J.
WILLIAMSON; DENIS D. HOLLE; STEVEN
RATHBUN; WESLEY E. DUWE; PAUL E.
DICKS; CONNIE K. FAULKNER,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of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.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Karlin, a pro se litigator filed a civil action seeking damages against
two United States district court judges, a Department of Justice attorney, and ten
current or former employees of the Internal Revenue Service. The action arose
out of a lawsuit by the United States against Mr. Karlin to set aside certain
transfers of property and to foreclose federal tax liens. The judge in that case
decided in favor of the United States and granted its motion for summary
judgment. In his complaint at issue, Mr. Karlin alleged the judges entered
judgments against him that violated his constitutional rights; the Department of
Justice attorney knew his constitutional rights were being violated in those cases
and failed to prevent it; and the Internal Revenue Service defendants violated
their oath to uphold the United States Constitution by failing to prevent the
violation of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed Mr. Karlin’s
complaint after concluding the judges had absolute immunity from suit, Mr.
Karlin failed to state a claim against the remaining defendants, and defendants
enjoyed qualified immunity. Mr. Karlin appeals these decisions and we affirm the
judgments of the district court.
-2-
Mr. Karlin appeals the two orders contending: “1. The complaint was filed
for Constitutional Rights violations by all Defendants, and therefor Appellant is
entitled to relief ...; 2. Appellant had demanded the case be conducted by a 7th
Amendment Jury, and Appellants demand was not honored, ... 3. Appellant is a
sovereign, private, Christian citizen, and is entitled to a 7th Amendment Trial by
jury as stated under the Constitution, Article III.”
Mr. Karlin misperceives the law. The two written decisions of the district
court are correct and accurately set forth the applicable law. Therefore, the
judgments of the trial court are upheld for substantially the same reasons stated
therein. Copies of the district court’s orders are attached hereto.
We need not address Mr. Karlin’s Seventh Amendment issue since a jury
trial is not required when one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1466 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S.
999 (1990).
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-3-
Attachments not available electronically.