Filed: Jun. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 23, 2005 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JAMES HENRY CLARK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1106 v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-2256) CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; (D. Colorado) MAYOR HICKENLOOPER; and OFFICER KAFADI, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argum
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 23, 2005 TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JAMES HENRY CLARK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1106 v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-2256) CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; (D. Colorado) MAYOR HICKENLOOPER; and OFFICER KAFADI, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges. After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argume..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 23, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES HENRY CLARK, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1106
v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-2256)
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; (D. Colorado)
MAYOR HICKENLOOPER; and
OFFICER KAFADI,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 Sheriff’s Department officials (Defendants) while he was detained for a
zoning violation at the Denver County Sheriff’s 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. Clark’s
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. Clark’s claim fails to meet this exacting standard. Thus, Mr. Clark’s § 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 court’s 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-