F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 24 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BENITO JEROME BOWIE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 01-6271
(D.C. No. 00-CV-1711-C)
RON MITCHELL; ROBERT A. (W.D. Oklahoma)
RAVITZ; CAROLYN RICKS; TIM
WILSON; OKLAHOMA CITY
POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE
OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION;
COUNCIL ON JUDICIAL
COMPLAINTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and BRISCOE ,
Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Benito Jerome Bowie appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his civil rights complaint, which he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Bowie is currently serving life sentences for two first degree murder
convictions. See Bowie v. State , 906 P.2d 759 (Okla. Crim. App. 1995)
(affirming Bowie’s conviction but reversing and remanding his death sentence in
first degree murder of victim Eric Douglas Dunn); Bowie v. State , 816 P.2d 1143
(Okla. Crim. App. 1991) (affirming Bowie’s conviction in first degree murder of
victim Melvin Traylor). In this action, he sued a variety of persons involved in
obtaining these convictions, including an investigating officer, two public
defenders, and a presiding trial judge. He also sued various persons and agencies
within the state of Oklahoma whose investigation of the conduct underlying his
convictions proved unsatisfactory to him.
In a well-reasoned report and recommendation, a federal magistrate judge
assigned to this case determined that all of Bowie’s claims were barred under one
or more of the following theories: failure to state a claim; absolute immunity
(judicial and testimonial); Eleventh Amendment immunity; lack of standing; and
the statute of limitations. He further declined to exercise jurisdiction over any
-2-
state law claims stated in the complaint. The district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of Bowie’s complaint on
each of the above theories. See, e.g., McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan, Inc. , 287 F.3d
992, 997 (10th Cir. 2002) (failure to state a claim); Scott v. Hern , 216 F.3d 897,
908 (10th Cir. 2000) (absolute immunity); Joseph A. ex rel. Wolfe v. Ingram , 275
F.3d 1253, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002) (Eleventh Amendment immunity); Faustin v.
City & County of Denver , 268 F.3d 942, 947 (10th Cir. 2001) (standing); Laurino
v. Tate , 220 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2000) (statute of limitations). Upon our
review of the record, the briefs 1
and the applicable law pursuant to these
standards, we have determined that Bowie’s complaint was properly dismissed.
1
Appellees filed a total of three response briefs. Two of these briefs were
filed by individual parties. These parties were required by 10th Cir. R. 31.3(B) to
provide “a certificate plainly stating the reasons why the separate brief is
necessary.” The Oklahoma Bar Association did not provide a certificate;
however, it was excused from this requirement by Rule 31.3(D), which exempts
government entities. Police Chief Berry’s brief includes a 31.3(B) certificate,
which simply states that a separate brief was necessary because the alleged
liability of each defendant and the consequent dismissal were reached on a
“different basis.” Berry Resp. Br. at 12. None of these briefs even approached
the page limit for an appellee’s brief. We see no good reason why appellees
could not have filed a single brief, and thereby spared this court the effort of
reading three separate, repetitive appellees’ briefs. See 10th Cir. R. 31.3(A).
-3-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is therefore AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons articulated
in the district court’s order of dismissal dated July 3, 2001, and the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation of May 14, 2001. The mandate shall issue
forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-4-