Armijo v. Larimer County Courts et al
Filing
19
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/9/14. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01967-BNB
SAMUEL G. ARMIJO,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHRYN M. HAY,
LARIMER COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER, and
CLIFF RIDEL,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, Samuel G. Armijo, is a prisoner incarcerated at the Cheyenne Mountain
Re-Entry Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He initiated this action by submitting
pro se a Complaint and a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. After determining that the documents were deficient, Magistrate Judge
Boyd N. Boland instructed Mr. Armijo to file his documents on the court-approved forms
and to file an amended prisoner complaint that sues the proper parties and complies
with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Armijo filed an Amended
Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 11) and Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to
Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 17) on the proper, court-approved
forms.
On October 7, 2014, the Court granted Mr. Armijo leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this action. Pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B), the
Court must dismiss the action if the claims Mr. Armijo is asserting are frivolous,
malicious, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
A legally frivolous claim is one in which the plaintiff asserts the violation of a legal
interest that clearly does not exist or asserts facts that do not support an arguable claim.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).
Mr. Armijo is cautioned that his ability to file a civil action or appeal in federal
court in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 may be barred if he has three or
more actions or appeals in any federal court that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious,
or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g). Under § 1915(g), the Court may count dismissals entered prior to the
enactment of this statute. Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 420 (10th Cir. 1996).
On July 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Boland entered an order (ECF No. 5)
directing Mr. Armijo to file an amended prisoner complaint. In the July 18 Order,
Magistrate Judge Boland advised Mr Armijo that his claims challenging his current
incarceration are barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 447 (1994).
Magistrate Judge Boland also informed Mr. Armijo that his sole federal remedy to
challenge his criminal convictions and to obtain release from incarceration, after he has
exhausted state court remedies, is a writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 504 (1973). He also informed Mr. Armijo that the Court will not consider
the merits of any habeas corpus claims in this civil rights action. Magistrate Judge
Boland further advised Mr. Armijo that he may not sue the state court in Larimer County
and Defendant District Attorney Cliff Ridel because state courts and state prosecutors
are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Finally, Magistrate Judge Boland
2
explained that the Complaint did not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Mr. Armijo failed to provide a short and
plain statement of any constitutional claims showing he is entitled to relief.
On September 2, 2014, Mr. Armijo submitted an Amended Prisoner Complaint
(ECF No. 11) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Public Defender Kathryn M. Hay, Larimer County Justice Center, and District Attorney
Cliff Ridel. The Court must construe Mr. Armijo’s Complaint liberally because he is not
represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall
v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be an
advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, the Prisoner Complaint will be dismissed.
Despite his characterization, Mr. Armijo appears to be challenging his state court
convictions in Larimer County. He asserts the following three claims: (1) violation of his
due process rights to a fair trial where Defendant Hay “did not represent me with my
best interest at mind” and Defendant Ridel “prosicuted (sic) me based on emotion not
fact and evidence;” (2) violation of his due process rights where he “was not compotent
(sic) to stand trial due to medical condition, pain, confusion;” and (3) discrimination at
trial “because of being the only survivor or because I am Mexican American.” (See ECF
No. 11 at 4-6). He seeks release from incarceration and money damages.
Mr. Armijo’s challenge to his state convictions and attempted habeas corpus
relief may not be raised in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500 (prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his sentence must
seek habeas corpus relief).
3
To the extent Mr. Armijo is seeking other relief, the claims are barred by the rule
in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In short, a civil rights action filed by a state
prisoner “is barred (absent prior invalidation) – no matter the relief sought (damages or
equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to
conviction or internal prison proceedings) – if success in that action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S.
74, 81-82 (2005). Mr. Armijo’s claims are all based on the argument that he was
deprived of due process, and they implicitly question the validity of his convictions. He
does not allege that he has invalidated any convictions that pertain to his current
confinement and its duration, and therefore his claims are barred under Heck.
Moreover, Mr. Armijo is suing improper parties. First, his claims against
Defendant Ridel are subject to dismissal based on the doctrine of prosecutorial
immunity. State prosecutors are absolutely immune from a civil rights suit based on
actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial duties. See Imbler v. Pachtman,
424 U.S. 409, 420-24 (1976); see also Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 (1978).
Initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution are acts are “‘intimately associated with
the judicial process’” Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting
Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430). Mr. Armijo’s allegations against Defendant Ridel concern the
prosecution of Mr. Armijo’s case, and thus Defendant Ridel is entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity from this lawsuit.
Second, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against Defendant Hay
based on her role as Mr. Armijo’s public defender are not cognizable here. The
Supreme Court has stated that “a public defender does not act under color of state law
4
when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.” See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). Additionally,
“even though the defective performance of defense counsel may cause the trial process
to deprive an accused person of his liberty in an unconstitutional manner, the lawyer
who may be responsible for the unconstitutional state action does not himself act under
color of state law within the meaning of § 1983.” Garza v. Bandy, 293 Fed. Appx. 565,
566-67 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329 n.6
(1983)). Mr. Armijo’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been
brought on direct appeal in his criminal case or on habeas corpus review.1 Thus, Mr.
Armijo’s claims against Defendant Hay may not proceed here.
For these reasons, the instant action will be dismissed pursuant to Heck. A Heck
dismissal counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Hafed v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
635 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (10th Cir. 2011).
Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis
status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369
U.S. 438 (1962). If Mr. Armijo files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505.00
appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States
1
The Court may take judicial notice of its own records and files that are part of the
Court’s public records. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d
1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979). In Case No. 04-cv-02609-WYD, Mr. Armijo filed an application for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions. The
Court denied the application and dismissed the case with prejudice, including Mr. Armijo’s claim
that his public defender was ineffective. (See ECF No. 20 at 11). In Case No. 12-cv-01632LTB, Mr. Armijo attempted to again challenge his conviction based on the same ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. The Court, therefore, dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction
because it was a second or successive application. (See ECF No. 6 at 1-2).
5
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Amended Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 11) and the action
are dismissed without prejudice as barred by the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that any pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this
9th
day of
October
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
6
, 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?