F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 17, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
DERRAL SCHRODER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. Nos. 05-1487 & 06-1057
(Consolidated Appeals)
JAM ES HOW ARD FRASHER; (D.C. No. 05-CV -1836-OES)
LARRY C. PORTER; M ICH AEL (D . Colo.)
PORTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
OR DER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before KELLY, M cKA Y, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Derral Schroder appeals the district court’s remand of his state criminal
case, dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit, and denial of his motion for recusal. 1
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument
pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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.
1
This Court consolidated Schroder’s appeals for the purposes of briefing,
record, and submission in an order dated February 27, 2006. Schroder submitted
a document, entitled “Response to Lucero, Hartz and O’Brien Order dated Feb.
27, 2006,” to this Court following the consolidation. Even when construed
liberally, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (“A pro se
litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally . . . .”), the document contains
(continued...)
For substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court we AFFIRM
its orders and DISM ISS Schroder’s appeals.
On September 22, 2005, Schroder filed a notice of removal in district court
seeking to remove his state criminal case from the Baca County Court in
Springfield, Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the D istrict of C olorado. Less
than a week later, on September 28, 2005, he filed a verified complaint in district
court suing M ichael Porter and James Howard Frasher, Baca County judges, as
well as Larry C. Porter, the assistant district attorney that prosecuted Schroder’s
case. In the complaint, Schroder alleges that Attorney Porter and Judge Frasher
failed to disqualify themselves from his case, and Judge Porter failed to promptly
recuse himself. Because Schroder asserted that his civil rights were violated, the
district court treated the complaint as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On October 3,
2005, Schroder filed a motion seeking to disqualify M agistrate Judge O . Edward
Schlatter, who had been assigned to both actions.
The district court found no legitimate basis for removal and summarily
remanded Schroder’s criminal case to Baca County Court. Finding that
Schroder’s § 1983 suit sought monetary damages against defendants immune to
such relief, the district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as legally frivolous. Finally, because Schroder failed to advance
1
(...continued)
no objection to the consolidation order, and we do not consider it further.
-2-
any legal basis for M agistrate Judge Schlatter’s disqualification, the court denied
his motion for recusal.
An order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is
ordinarily not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Section 1447(d)
provides an exception to this general rule for cases removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1443, however, Schroder’s case does not fall within this category. Accordingly,
we will not consider his appeal of the district court’s remand.
W e review a dismissal pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) de novo. See Perkins v.
Kansas Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) requires a court to dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis
(IFP) where the plaintiff seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief. Schroder sought damages from two state court judges and an
assistant district attorney for actions they undertook in their official capacities.
Judges are absolutely immune from monetary liability for actions taken in their
judicial capacity unless they clearly acted without jurisdiction. See M ireless v.
W aco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Similarly, prosecutors are immune from suits
for civil damages when initiating and presenting a criminal case. See Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). W e therefore conclude that the district
court properly dismissed Schroder’s § 1983 suit as frivolous.
W hether to recuse is a decision comm itted to the discretion of the presiding
judge. United States v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 (10th Cir. 1992). W e
-3-
review the denial of a motion for recusal for abuse of discretion. Id. A judge, or
in this case a magistrate judge, must recuse himself “in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). This is an
objective test, based on a judge’s “outward manifestations and reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom,” rather than the judge’s actual state of mind.
Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995). A defendant may request
recusal by filing an affidavit with the court stating the reasons the defendant
believes the judge is personally biased or prejudiced. 28 U.S.C. § 144. W e
accept the facts alleged in the affidavit as true for the purpose of review. See
Glass v. Pfeffer, 849 F.2d 1261, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988).
The only possible ground for recusal Schroder alleges is that M agistrate
Judge Schlatter sentenced him to three and one-half years’ imprisonment in 1991
and was reversed on appeal. However, “judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for bias.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994). A prior ruling will suffice to show bias only where it derived from an
extrajudicial source, or where the judge’s remarks reveal a high degree of
favoritism or antagonism. Id. Schroder has failed to allege any facts that suggest
M agistrate Judge Schlatter’s sentencing order met either of these criteria. As
such, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Schroeder’s motion for recusal.
-4-
Finally, Schroder seeks leave to proceed IFP on this appeal. Because he
was granted permission to proceed IFP by the district court, his IFP status
continues on appeal and his request is moot.
For the foregoing reasons we AFFIRM the orders of the district court and
DISM ISS Schroder’s appeals.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-5-