Sooner Prods. Co. v. Paul Mcbride, 708 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Sooner Prods. Co. v. Paul Mcbride, 708 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
184 citation events (82 in the last 25 years) across 26 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Randall v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole (ca10, 2024-10-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Randall v. Utah Board of Pardons & Parole
10th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co., 708 F.2d at 512.4 Even though Mr. Randall did not formally plead a cause of action involving conspiracy, his allegations of fact imply concerted conduct.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Xlear
D. Utah · 2022 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ellibee v. Fox
10th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
At the same time, however, we have held that “[w]hen a plaintiff in a § 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary ‘state action’ by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Montoya v. Board of County Commissioners
D. Colo. · 2007 · confidence medium
In the end, Plaintiffs claim that any Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to tase him rests solely upon “conclusory allegations” of the same, which are “as a matter of law, insufficient to demonstrate conspiratorial nexus.” Sooner Prods., 708 F.2d at 512.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Penner v. Cordell
10th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (internal citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hornsby v. Kaiser
10th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Co., 708 F.2d at 512.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weaver v. Boyles
D. Kan. · 2001 · confidence medium
Bank, 46 F.3d 24, 26 (7th Cir.1994), ce rt. denied, 514 U.S. 1065 , 115 S.Ct. 1696 , 131 L.Ed.2d 560 (1995). “ ‘When a plaintiff in a § 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary “state action” by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and *1343 concerted action.’ ” Scott v. Hern, 216 F.3d at 907 (quoting Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Inc. , Amicus Curiae
10th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co., 708 F.2d at 512.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. Hern
10th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co., 708 F.2d at 512.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc.
D. Kan. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 708 F.2d at 512 (plaintiff represented by counsel); Swoboda v. Dubach, 992 F.2d 286, 290 (10th Cir.1993) (pro se plaintiff).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simon v. Navon
D. Me. · 1997 · confidence medium
Co., 708 F.2d at 512; Klamath-Lake Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 701 F.2d at 1293.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Simmons v. Beinvenu
10th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir.1989); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howell v. Koch
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir.1981). 27 Mr. Howell lists a number of people as defendants who were not personally involved with the medical diagnoses and treatment received by the plaintiff.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Waylon Gene Majeski v. Doctor Neufeld and Doctor Carlson
10th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) & (5); TBG, Inc. v. Bendis, 36 F.3d 916, 921-22 (10th Cir.1994); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 511 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gressley v. Deutsch
D. Wyo. · 1994 · confidence medium
Hammond v. Bales, 843 F.2d 1320, 1323 (10th Cir.1988) (citing with approval Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983)) (emphasis added); and see Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291 , 1303 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mickey Dean Douglas v. E. Alvin Schay
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
At the same time, however, we have held that "[w]hen a plaintiff in a 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary state action' by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action." Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Murray v. Sevier
D. Kan. · 1994 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim when plaintiff fails to allege an essential element of the claim). 4 B.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Overbrook Farmers Union Cooperative Association, and v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and Cross-Appellee
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (denial of motion to amend complaint reviewed for abuse of discretion).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt v. Bennett
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
At the same time, however, we have held that "[w]hen a plaintiff in a Sec. 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary 'state action' by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action." Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt v. Bennett
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
At the same time, however, we have held that “[w]hen a plaintiff in a § 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary ‘state action’ by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Denmon v. Runyon
D. Kan. · 1993 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 [1962]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frymire v. Ampex Corp.
D. Colo. · 1993 · confidence medium
One of the reasons which will justify the denial of leave to amend is “futility of the amendment.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983), citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. at 182 , 83 S.Ct. at 230 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael C. Washington v. Russell Hall, Judge Doug Friesen, Attorney Ronald M. Shaw
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); see Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir.1990); Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir.1990); Durre v. Dempsey, 869 F.2d 543, 545 (10th Cir.1989); Benavidez v. Gunnell, 722 F.2d 615, 618 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raymond P. Cabututan v. Quinn D. Hunsaker
10th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
However, "mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action." Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Haupt v. Dillard
D. Nev. · 1992 · confidence medium
Woodrum, 866 F.2d at 1126 ; Fonda, 707 F.2d at 438 ; Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stump v. Gates
D. Colo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Pleadings asserting such a claim “must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Merrigan v. Affiliated Bankshares of Colorado, Inc.
D. Colo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ketchum v. Cruz
D. Colo. · 1991 · confidence medium
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White v. People of State of Colo.
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir.1986); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (10th Cir.1981). 38 As to the claim that defendants are conspiring against him, plaintiff offers nothing more than vague and conclusory allegations concerning such conspiracy.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mann v. Rigtrup
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Schaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 1259, 1260-61 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Bellmon
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 871 , 107 L.Ed.2d 954 (1990); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds sub nom, Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1984), aff'd, 471 U.S. 261 , 105 S.Ct. 1938 , 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir.1981); Lorraine v. United States, 444 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hall v. Bellmon
10th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 871 , 107 L.Ed.2d 954 (1990); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983), overruled on other grounds sub nom, Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640 (10th Cir.1984), aff 'd, 471 U.S. 261 , 105 S.Ct. 1938 , 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, 1333 (10th Cir.1981); Lorraine v. United States, 444 F.2d 1, 2 (10th Cir.1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Catherine Dianne Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through Her Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree David Lynn Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through His Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree Avondale, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. Clyde D. Muchmore Brooke S. Murphy Harvey D. Ellis, Jr., and David M. Cook, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Catherine Dianne Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through Her Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree David Lynn Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through His Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree Avondale, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. Clyde D. Muchmore Brooke S. Murphy Harvey D. Ellis, Jr., and David M. Cook, Judge of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Catherine Dianne Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through Her Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree David Lynn Crabtree, a Minor, by and Through His Next Friend, F. Dale Crabtree Avondale, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation v. Clyde D. Muchmore Brooke S. Murphy Harvey D. Ellis, Jr.
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). 30 When plaintiffs in a civil rights action attempt to assert the necessary element of "state action" by implicating a state judge in a conspiracy with private defendants, "mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action." Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crabtree ex rel. Crabtree v. Muchmore
10th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
When plaintiffs in a civil rights action attempt to assert the necessary element of “state action” by implicating a state judge in a conspiracy with private defendants, “mere conelusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Reverend Father John P. O'malley, O.S.A., Individually, and James A. Nesbitt, Individually v. The Reverend Father Patrick H. O'neill, O.S.A. (2×)
11th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Barger v. State of Kansas, 620 F.Supp. 1432 (D.Kan.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Donald Eugene Staggs, United States of America v. Charles David Teafatiller, United States of America v. Peggy Savage Teafatiller, United States of America v. Frank E. Gabriel
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Conclusory allegations without supporting facts are insufficient.") (citing Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.1980) (complaint that did "little more than recite the relevant anti-trust laws" without providing underlying facts was properly subject to dismissal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Staggs
10th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Conclusory allegations without supporting facts are insufficient.”) (citing Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.1980) (complaint that did “little more .than recite the relevant anti-trust laws” without providing underlying facts was properly subject to dismissal).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Smith
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Karen Hammond v. Waldo Bales and Roger Hammond
10th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mason v. Twenty-Sixth Judicial Dist. of Kansas
D. Kan. · 1987 · confidence medium
To state a cause of action under section 1985, the pleadings “must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ocasek v. Hegglund
D. Wyo. · 1987 · confidence medium
The Court recognizes that grant or denial of leave to amend is a matter within the discretion of the Court and that Rule 15 requires that leave to amend be “freely given when justice so requires.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330 (1971); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hale v. Harney
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hale v. Harney
5th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phelps v. Washburn University of Topeka
D. Kan. · 1986 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983); Clulow v. State of Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephenson v. Esquivel
D.N.M. · 1985 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Benavidez v. Gunnell, 722 F.2d 615, 618 (10th Cir.1983); Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir.1977); Harley v. Oliver, 539 F.2d 1143, 1146 (8th Cir.1976); Tarkowski v. Bartlett Realty Co., 644 F.2d 1204, 1206 (7th Cir.1980); Weiss v. Willow Tree Civic Ass’n, 467 F.Supp. 803, 811 (S.D.N.Y.1979).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert-Gay Energy Enterprises, Inc. v. State Corporation Commission Of Kansas
10th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 511 (10th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert-Gay Energy Enterprises, Inc. v. State Corp. Commission
10th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 511 (10th Cir.1983) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diulus v. Churchill Valley Country Club
W.D. Pa. · 1985 · confidence medium
First, inasmuch as Plaintiffs assert that “state action” exists “by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action.” Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983) (citing Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 , overruled on other grounds sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Phillips v. Mashburn
11th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Sooner Products Co. v. McBride, 708 F.2d 510, 512 (10th Cir.1983).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sooner Products Company, an Oklahoma Corporation
v.
Paul McBride R. Dow Bonnell, W.C. Sellers, James M. Sturdivant, Wilbur L. Dunn, Richard D. Pittenger, Geraldine Pittenger, George L. Brown, Citizen's Security Bank of Bixby, a State Banking Corporation in Oklahoma, Arch Investments, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Arch Manufacturing Company, an Oklahoma Corporation, Pittenger Sintered Products, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, and Lenco, Inc., a Missouri Corporation
81-1842.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 16, 1983.
708 F.2d 510
Published

708 F.2d 510

SOONER PRODUCTS COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Paul McBRIDE, R. Dow Bonnell, W.C. Sellers, James M.
Sturdivant, Wilbur L. Dunn, Richard D. Pittenger, Geraldine
Pittenger, George L. Brown, Citizen's Security Bank of
Bixby, a State Banking Corporation in Oklahoma, Arch
Investments, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, Arch
Manufacturing Company, an Oklahoma Corporation, Pittenger
Sintered Products, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation, and Lenco,
Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-1842.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

May 16, 1983.

Earl W. Wolfe, Tulsa, Okl. (Craig R. Tweedy, Sapulpa, Okl., with him on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Kenneth D. Bodenhamer of Morrel, Herrold & West, Inc., Tulsa, Okl., for defendants-appellees, Richard D. Pittenger, Geraldine Pittenger, Pittenger Sintered Products, Inc., R. Dow Bonnell and Paul McBride.

Oliver S. Howard of Gable & Gotwals, Tulsa, Okl., for defendants-appellees, Arch Investments, Inc., Arch Mfg. Co., Wilbur L. Dunn, James M. Sturdivant and Lenco, Inc.

Ed Parks III of Parks & Buck, Tulsa, Okl., submitted briefs for defendant-appellee, W.C. Sellers.

Robert L. Roark of Chapel, Wilkinson, Riggs, Abney & Henson, Tulsa, Okl., submitted a brief for defendants-appellees, George L. Brown and Citizen's Sec. Bank of Bixby.

Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~510]1

Sooner Products Co. (Sooner) brought an action under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983, 1985 and 1986 (1976) against numerous defendants in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), all defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court allowed Sooner to amend its complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 14, 1981, the district court granted the motions to dismiss in favor of all the defendants. On May 26, 1981, Sooner filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). The district court denied that motion on June 23, 1981. On July 23, 1981, Sooner filed its notice of appeal of the orders of May 14 and June 23.

2

Sooner contends that the order of May 14 was not a final, appealable order, and therefore its notice of appeal filed on July 23 was timely. We disagree. In order to determine whether a trial court's dismissal of a complaint is a final, appealable order, we must scrutinize the order to determine whether the trial court intended to dispose of the plaintiff's entire cause of action. Bragg v. Reed, 592 F.2d 1136, 1138 (10th Cir.1979); Petty v. Manpower, Inc., 591 F.2d 615, 617 (10th Cir.1979) (per curiam). A review of the May 14 order reveals the clear intent of the district court to extinguish Sooner's entire cause of action. The May 14 order was final and appealable at that time.

3

Under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), a party is required to file its notice of appeal within thirty days after the date of entry of the order which is appealed. Sooner did not file its notice of appeal until well over thirty days beyond the entry of the May 14 order. Sooner's motion for leave to amend its complaint was not a motion that would toll the running of that time period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). Nor did Sooner file a motion for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5). Thus, because Sooner's notice of appeal was therefore untimely with respect to the May 14 order, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal of that order. Browder v. Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); Glass v. Pfeffer, 657 F.2d 252, 254 (10th Cir.1981).

4

The only issue before us, therefore, is whether the trial court erred in denying Sooner's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The grant or denial of leave to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330, 91 S.Ct. 795, 802, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); however, since Rule 15(a) requires that leave to amend be "freely given when justice so requires", the trial court generally must justify its denial of such a motion. Foman, supra, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230; Childers v. Independent School District No. 1, 676 F.2d 1338, 1343 (10th Cir.1982). One of the reasons which will justify the denial of leave to amend is "futility of amendment". Foman, supra, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230.

[*~511]5

In its original complaint, Sooner alleged an elaborate conspiracy among numerous private defendants, but wholly failed to allege any action under color of state law, an essential element of a suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1976). Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1732, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). Sooner attempted to cure that defect in its first amended complaint by alleging that three Oklahoma state court judges were involved in the conspiracy. In its second amended complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 only, Sooner made essentially the same allegations. The trial court found that the "conclusory allegations" in the second amended complaint failed to cure the defects present in the first amended complaint. Inasmuch as the second amended complaint would also be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the trial court considered the amendment to be futile and denied the motion for leave to amend.

6

When a plaintiff in a Sec. 1983 action attempts to assert the necessary "state action" by implicating state officials or judges in a conspiracy with private defendants, mere conclusory allegations with no supporting factual averments are insufficient; the pleadings must specifically present facts tending to show agreement and concerted action. Clulow v. Oklahoma, 700 F.2d 1291, 1303 (10th Cir.1983). The standard is even stricter where the state officials allegedly involved in the conspiracy are immune from suit, as are the state court judges here. Shaffer v. Cook, 634 F.2d 1259, 1260 (10th Cir.1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 984, 101 S.Ct. 2316, 68 L.Ed.2d 840 (1981); Norton v. Liddel, 620 F.2d 1375, 1380 (10th Cir.1980).

7

As did the two prior complaints, the second amended complaint reveals that the sole basis of Sooner's suit is a private conspiracy. Nowhere does Sooner allege facts tending to show that the state court judges agreed with the private conspirators and acted in concert with them. The second amended complaint does no more than allege that the judges were aware of and involved in the conspiracy. The only facts averred in support of that allegation are that the judges ruled against Sooner and one of the judges later retired from the bench and joined a law firm which had been involved in the state court litigation.

[*~512]8

We agree with the trial court that Sooner's conclusory allegations are, as a matter of law, insufficient to demonstrate any conspiratorial nexus. Clulow, supra, 700 F.2d at 1303; Shaffer, supra, 634 F.2d at 1260. The trial court correctly concluded that to grant leave to file the second amended complaint would have been futile, because it would have been subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Foman, supra, 371 U.S. at 182, 83 S.Ct. at 230. There was no abuse of discretion. The order of the trial court is affirmed.