F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 30 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICHARD L. PARTRIDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 97-4133
v. (D.C. No. 97-CV-39J)
(D. Utah)
CLINT S. JUDKINS and JOHN D.
SORGE, in their individual and
official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Richard L. Partridge, appearing pro se and seeking leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Clint S. Judkins, a state court judge, and John D. Sorge, a county prosecutor. In
his complaint, he alleged jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code 78-3-4 and 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1985 and 1986. Partridge sought declaratory judgment, equitable relief
including injunctive relief, and both compensatory and punitive damages. We
deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
This case arises out of Partridge’s prosecution in Box Elder County Justice
Court for various traffic violations. Judkins was the presiding judge and Sorge
was the county prosecutor at Partridge’s trial. According to Partridge’s
complaint, Judkins and Sorge denied him various procedural rights during the
course of his criminal trial. The district court granted defendants’ motion to
dismiss, concluding Partridge’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. More specifically, the court concluded both defendants were
entitled to absolute immunity from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349,
355-57 (1978) (discussing absolute judicial immunity); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424
U.S. 409, 420 (1976) (discussing prosecutorial immunity). In addition, because
Partridge’s claims called into question the validity of his underlying criminal
convictions, the court concluded Partridge was required to first show his
convictions had been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87
-2-
(1994). The court further concluded Partridge’s allegations concerning violation
of his constitutional rights, including his right to due process, are issues more
appropriately addressed by the state appellate court in a timely appeal from his
state court convictions.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and agree with the district
court’s expressed reasons for dismissal. Therefore, we conclude the appeal is
frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The appeal is DISMISSED and the request for permission to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-3-