Shinault v. Hada et al

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing this action with prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/10/14. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-02757-BNB
(The above civil action number must appear on all future papers
sent to the court in this action. Failure to include this number
may result in a delay in the consideration of your claims.)
TELELA SHINAULT,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE KERRY HADA, and
JUDGE MARY CELESTE,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Telela Shinault, resides in Denver. She initiated this action by
submitting pro se a Complaint (ECF No. 1) for money damages, apparently pursuant to
the Fair Housing Act, and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2). Ms. Shinault will be granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this action.
The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Ms. Shinault 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.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss the action if the
claims Ms. Shinault is asserting are frivolous. 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).
Ms. Shinault is suing two Denver County Court judges, the Honorable Kerry
Hada and the Honorable Mary Celeste, for their rulings in state court proceedings
concerning Plaintiff’s allegedly wrongful eviction. Ms. Shinault cannot obtain the relief
she wants in this lawsuit by suing the judicial officers who presided over her state court
eviction proceedings because she disagrees with their decisions. Judges Hada and
Celeste are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their judicial
capacity, unless they acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v. Waco,
502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Hunt v.
Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1994). “A judge will not be deprived of
immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority.” Stump, 435 U.S. 356–57. Judicial officers are explicitly
immunized not only against damages but also against suits for injunctive relief. See
Ysais v. New Mexico, No. 09-2109, 373 F. App’x 863, 866 (10th Cir. April 16, 2010)
(unpublished). Although these cases discuss judicial immunity in the context of civil
rights suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, no federal statute needs specifically to
exclude judges in order for a judge to be entitled to judicial immunity. See 15
Corporations, Inc. v. Denver Prosecutor’s Office, No. 13-cv-00251-WJM-MJW, 2013 WL
5781161, at *5 (D. Colo. Oct. 25, 2013) (unpublished). Ms. Shinault makes no
argument supported by factual allegations that the Defendant judges acted outside of
their authority or went beyond their jurisdiction.
2

For these reasons, the instant action will be dismissed as legally frivolous.
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 Plaintiff files a notice of appeal she also must pay the full $505.00 appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff, Telela Shinault, is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this action. It is
ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) and the action are dismissed with
prejudice as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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

10th

day of

October

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3

, 2014.