# John A. Mitchell v. Bruce King, Governor of the State of New Mexico

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · June 22, 1976 · 537 F.2d 385

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462829

## Case

- **Full name:** John A. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce KING, Governor of the State of New Mexico, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 22, 1976
- **Citations:** 537 F.2d 385; 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Breitenstein
- **Judges:** Breitenstein, Barrett, Doyle
- **Cited by:** 181 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462829

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying New Mexico law

## Opinion text

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result but cannot concur in much of the supportive reasoning. I am particularly disturbed by the discussion of thé decision of the Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 , 44 LW 4337. The statement that, “the governmental action complained of must deprive the petitioner of a right which has its genesis in state law, and the protective shield of 1983 extends only to those interests” is followed by quotation *392 from Paul v. Davis which omits its footnote 5, at 710, 96 S.Ct. at 1165 , 44 LW at 4342. That footnote reads:
“There are other interests, of course, protected not by virtue of their recognition by the law of a particular State, but because they are guaranteed in one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which has been ‘incorporated’ into the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 1983 makes a deprivation of such rights actionable independently of state law. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961).”
I agree with the quoted footnote and am fearful that its omission may lead to a misunderstanding of the extent of the rights protected by § 1983.
Judge BARRETT expresses his agreement with the observations contained herein interpretive of Paul v. Davis, supra.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462829. Public record. Not legal advice.