FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 11, 2008
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RICHARD VALDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 07-1313
v. (D.C. No. 07-CV-740-ZLW)
(D. Colo.)
JULIE MARSHALL, Judge, District
Court Fremont County; COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
BILL RITTER, Governor; ALLEN
STANLEY, Colorado Department
Division of State Board of Parole and
Complete Staff; DIVISION OF
ADULT PAROLE AND
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS;
JEANEEN MILLER; STATE OFFICE
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
Fremont County; MOLLY CHILSON,
D.A.; KATHY EBERLING, D.A.;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;
ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S.
Attorney; NORA KURTZ, Sgt.
Mailroom Arkansas Valley
Correctional Facility and Complete
Staff; ADULT PROBATION OF
FREMONT COUNTY; MARK
NETHERCOT; COLORADO STATE
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER; MR. WILSON;
FRANCES BROWN; SAM
MCCLURE; WORLEY, Canyon City
Police Dept. Detective; LOU
ARCHULETA, Arkansas Valley
Correctional Facility Warden; NINA
DAVIS, Canyon City Police Dept.
Cooperating Source; UNITED
STATES SENTENCING
COMMISSION; KENNETH P.
COHEN, Washington, D.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. **
Defendant-Appellant Richard Valdez, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice. Mr. Valdez
sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against a variety of state, local
and federal officials challenging his conviction, sentence, and conditions of
confinement. Though Mr. Valdez argues on appeal that the district court never
addressed the merits of his claims, we affirm for substantially the same reasons
given by the district court. 1 The invalidity or improper execution of a sentence is
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
1
Mr. Valdez also requested that the court hear his case en banc. His
request does not comply with Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(1) which requires that a
petition address the extraordinary grounds which might justify an initial hearing
-2-
addressed through a habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254; see Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487, 500 (1973). Additionally, the claims for relief
under § 1983 lack sufficient focus and detail to transform them into claims for
relief.
AFFIRMED. All pending requests and motions are denied including the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Valdez must immediately pay the
unpaid balance due on the appellate filing fee.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
en banc. See also 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). Accordingly, the request is denied.
-3-