Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of James Henry Clark Jr.'s pro se civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and County of Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper, and Officer Kafadi. Clark alleged his constitutional rights were violated during his detention at the Denver County Sheriff's intake facility when he was deprived of asthma medication and ridiculed, but the courts found he lacked standing to bring the claim because he failed to demonstrate an actual injury, that the injury was caused by defendants, or that judicial relief would redress the injury. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning and held no relief was available to Clark

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of James Henry Clark Jr.'s pro se civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and County of Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper, and Officer Kafadi. Clark alleged his constitutional rights were violated during his detention at the Denver County Sheriff's intake facility when he was deprived of asthma medication and ridiculed, but the courts found he lacked standing to bring the claim because he failed to demonstrate an actual injury, that the injury was caused by defendants, or that judicial relief would redress the injury. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning and held no relief was available to Clark

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-06-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1106

    Original Title

    Clark v. City/County Denver, 10th Cir. (2005)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of James Henry Clark Jr.'s pro se civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and County of Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper, and Officer Kafadi. Clark alleged his constitutional rights were violated during his detention at the Denver County Sheriff's intake facility when he was deprived of asthma medication and ridiculed, but the courts found he lacked standing to bring the claim because he failed to demonstrate an actual injury, that the injury was caused by defendants, or that judicial relief would redress the injury. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning and held no relief was available to Clark

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of James Henry Clark Jr.'s pro se civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City and County of Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper, and Officer Kafadi. Clark alleged his constitutional rights were violated during his detention at the Denver County Sheriff's intake facility when he was deprived of asthma medication and ridiculed, but the courts found he lacked standing to bring the claim because he failed to demonstrate an actual injury, that the injury was caused by defendants, or that judicial relief would redress the injury. The appellate court agreed with the district court's reasoning and held no relief was available to Clark

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    June 23, 2005

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    JAMES HENRY CLARK, JR.,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 05-1106
    (D.C. No. 04-Z-2256)

    CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;


    MAYOR HICKENLOOPER; and
    OFFICER KAFADI,

    (D. Colorado)

    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

    After examining Appellants brief and the 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
    The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    This is a pro se civil rights appeal under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In his claim to
    the district court, Mr. Clark alleged his civil rights were violated by Denver

    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.
    *

    County Sheriffs Department officials (Defendants) while he was detained for a


    zoning violation at the Denver County Sheriffs intake facility. During the
    detention, Mr. Clark alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights when
    they deprived him of asthma medication and continually ridiculed him throughout
    his detention. Mr. Clark asserts that these actions violated his rights under the
    First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments. The district court dismissed Mr. Clarks
    complaint as legally frivolous and entered judgment in Defendants favor. Mr.
    Clark appeals to this court.
    We agree with the district court that Mr. Clark does not have standing to
    bring his claim. To pursue his 1983 claim based on alleged constitutional
    violations, Mr. Clark must show he suffered some actual or threatened injury, that
    the injury was caused by Defendants, and that a favorable judicial decision would
    likely redress the injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for
    Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (citations omitted).
    Mr. Clarks claim fails to meet this exacting standard. Thus, Mr. Clarks 1983
    claim is not cognizable.
    After a thorough review of the briefs and the record, and for substantially
    the same reasons set forth in the district courts well-reasoned February 23, 2005
    Order and Judgment of Dismissal, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Clark
    pursuant to 1983.
    -2-

    The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.


    Entered for the Court
    Monroe G. McKay
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like