Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04232/USCOURTS-ca10-91-04232-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG O 61992 

MilE~:r L~ llOECKEE 

Clerk 

RAYMOND C. MARQUEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

EMERY COUNTY JUSTICE COURT and 

J.P. STAN TRUMAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-4232 

(D. Utah) 

(D. C. No. 91-C-994-W) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Raymond C. Marquez appeals from the dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 suit filed prose against Justice of the Peace Stan 

Truman and the Emery County Justice's Court for the State of Utah. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-4232 Document: 010110276689 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 1
He also appeals the denial of his attempt to join as additional 

defendants Scott Johansen, the County Attorney of Emery County, 

and Deputy County Attorney, Mary L. Gomez. 

Marquez was convicted in absentia and fined $265 by Justice 

Truman for alcohol related offenses. He alleges that this conviction violated his Due Process rights as well as his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and he seeks compensatory and 

punitive damages. The district court, adopting the report and 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dismissed the action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because the suit was barred by: 

(1) judicial immunity and (2) the Eleventh Amendment. Order of 

Nov. 15, 1991 at 2. The district court denied petitioner's motion 

to amend his complaint and name the prosecutors as additional 

persons because suit against those parties would be barred by 

prosecutorial immunity. Id. 

We review the dismissal of a suit under§ 1915(d) for an 

abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1228, 1234 

(1992). A judge has absolute immunity in civil rights actions 

from liability based on judicial actions. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 

U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978); Mee v. Ortega, No. 90-1288, 1992 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 13892 at *7 (10th Cir. June 18, 1992). The Eleventh 

Amendment presents an independent bar to the suit against Justice 

Truman for the reasons and authorities cited by the Magistrate 

Judge. Likewise, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for§ 1983 

suits. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 (1976); Harlow v. 

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-4232 Document: 010110276689 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 2
Marquez only seeks damages in his complaint. However, he 

makes certain representations suggesting that the acts complained 

of resulted in his being in custody. To the extent his complaint 

challenges his confinement, it also lacks an arguable basis. 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 suits are not the appropriate method for seeking 

relief from illegal confinement. That role is reserved for habeas 

corpus. Freiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 486, n.7 (1973). 

And, a litigant must exhaust all state remedies before pursuing 

any claims in federal court. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 

(1982). 

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Marquez's complaint for substantially the same reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation and the district court's Order Affirming the 

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate and Dismissing 

Plaintiff's Complaint. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-4232 Document: 010110276689 Date Filed: 08/06/1992 Page: 3