Ledford v. Krieger et al

Filing 97

ORDER affirming and adopting 95 United States Magistrate Judge Martiza Dominguez Braswell's Recommendation; granting 65 Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 3/10/25.(jdyne, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB
CHARLES WILLIAM LEDFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCIA S. KRIEGER,
MICHAEL J. WATANABE,
JAIME A. PEÑA,
DAVID STEINMAN,
GREG M. FLYNN, and,
CLARISSA L. COATE.
Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell’s
Recommendation to grant the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 1 ECF No. 95
(Recommendation); ECF No. 65 (motion to dismiss). Plaintiff did not object to Magistrate
Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation as an order of this Court and GRANTS the
Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

1

The Federal Defendants are the Honorable Marcia S. Krieger, the Honorable Michael J. Watanabe, Jaime
A. Peña, David R. Steinman, Clarissa L. Coate, and Greg M. Flynn. The Court previously dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Virginia L. Grady. See ECF No. 94.

1

I.

SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF

Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends that this Court dismiss the
claims you filed against Judges Krieger and Watanabe because those claims are barred
by absolute judicial immunity. Similarly, she recommends dismissing your claims against
Defendants Peña and Steinman on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. Finally, she
determined that your criminal conviction and sentence must be overturned or otherwise
invalidated before you can challenge the underlying actions leading to the conviction.
Because neither your conviction nor your sentence has been overturned, the claims
against Defendants Coate and Flynn are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994).
At the end of her Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell
advised that you had 14 days after service of the Recommendation to file a written
objection. You did not file an objection or otherwise respond within that window. The Court
has reviewed the Recommendation and has determined that it is correct.
As explained in more detail below, your claims against Judges Krieger and
Watanabe and federal prosecutors Peña and Steinman are dismissed with prejudice,
which means that you are not allowed to refile these claims. See Charles v. Hackford, No.
18-4024, 2018 WL 4006938, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) (unpublished) (a “dismissal with
prejudice means the plaintiff cannot return to federal court with the same claims” (citing
Styskal v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 365 F.3d 855, 859 (10th Cir. 2004))).
However, your claims against Defendants Coate and Flynn are dismissed without
prejudice, which means that you may refile your claims in the appropriate tribunal, if you
2

can satisfy the procedural and jurisdictional requirements. See Crowe v. Servin, 723 F.
App’x 595, 598 (10th Cir. 2018) (“A dismissal without prejudice just means that the plaintiff
isn’t barred from refiling the lawsuit within the applicable limitations period.” (citations and
quotations omitted)).
II.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against seven Defendants
stemming from a 2004 criminal case. ECF No. 13 (Am. Compl.) at 1–3, 6–8. In that
underlying case, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United
States. On June 27, 2005, Judge Marcia S. Krieger sentenced Plaintiff to 24 months in
prison and ordered him to make a restitution payment of $506,000.00. Despite pleading
guilty, Plaintiff argued—and continues to argue—that the government arrested the wrong
person.
In this civil case, like in his criminal case, Plaintiff alleges that “the defendant and
I were not the same entity and I was not a party to [that] action.” Id. at 6. He thus brings
claims against Judge Krieger and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for wrongfully
denying him his right to an “Identity Hearing.” ECF No. 13 at 1. He also filed suit against
his federal defender (Defendant Grady), prosecutors (Defendants Peña and Steinman),
and other federal employees (Defendants Coate and Flynn, who executed an arrest
warrant on Plaintiff) involved in his criminal case. Id. at 1–2. Before the Court is the
Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 65.

3

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, the
presiding district judge must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
[recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(3). An
objection to a recommendation is properly made if it is both timely and specific. United
States v. 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996). An objection is
sufficiently specific if it “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1059. In conducting
its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Moreover, because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings
and holds them to less stringent standards than formal filings drafted by lawyers. See
United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 2018). However, the Court will not act
as Plaintiff’s advocate, Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th
Cir. 2005), and the Court holds Plaintiff to the same procedural rules and requirements of
substantive law that govern other litigants. Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th
Cir. 2018).
IV.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION

When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard
it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
4

(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable
discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. The Court has reviewed
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s thorough Recommendation and is satisfied that
it is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
The Court thus makes the following rulings. The claims against Judges Krieger
and Watanabe are dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of absolute judicial
immunity. See Calvert v. Safranek, 209 F. App’x 816, 820 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Judges have
absolute immunity from suits for monetary damages for their judicial acts, including
sentencing. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356–57, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d
331 (1978). Mr. Calvert’s claim against Judge Brinkley must be dismissed with prejudice.”
(emphasis added)). 2
The claims against Defendants Peña and Steinman are dismissed with prejudice
under the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. Calvert, 209 F. App’x at 819 (dismissing
“claims in full and with prejudice” because a “criminal prosecutor enjoys absolute
immunity from damages under section 1983”). 3

2

See also Rawson v. Sumner Cnty. Dist. Ct., No. 24-2101-JWB-BGS, 2024 WL 3742774, at *4 (D. Kan.
Apr. 29, 2024) (“Defendant Wood is entitled to absolute judicial immunity and the claims against him should
be dismissed with prejudice” (citing Calvert, 209 F. App’x at 820)); Czajkowski v. Karn, No. 23-CV-02924LTB-SBP, 2024 WL 2794210, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2024) (dismissing with prejudice claims against judge
based on absolute judicial immunity).
3
See also Saxena v. Jackson, No. 1:23-CV-00213-DDD-SBP, 2024 WL 687034, at *10 (D. Colo. Jan. 16,
2024) (“The individual DA Defendants have established that the conduct that Plaintiff challenges here is
shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity and that the claims against them are subject to dismissal for
this reason. If Judge Domenico dismisses the claims on this basis, such a dismissal is with prejudice. See
Calvert, 209 F. App’x at 819.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-CV-00213-DDD-SBP, 2024
WL 1831080 (D. Colo. Feb. 14, 2024); Carrier v. Lundstedt, No. 13-CV-02933-PAB-CBS, 2014 WL
8103198, at *11 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2014) (“All claims against Defendants Fitch and Bryant pursuant to §
1983 in their individual capacities be dismissed with prejudice based on prosecutorial immunity.”), report
and recommendation adopted, No. 13-CV-02933-PAB-CBS, 2015 WL 1041835 (D. Colo. Mar. 4, 2015); but

5