139 F. 3d 911 - Givens v. Glickman D

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

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 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 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.