Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01334/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01334-0/pdf.json

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

---

. !LED 

united cate Co~r:t ~f Appeals ·renth C,c:0J1, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MA 2 0 1991 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Cl rk 

MANUEL SESARIO DEPINEDA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

LAMAR SIMS; DAVID OLIVAS; 

NORMANS. EARLY, JR., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1334 

(D.C. No. 90-F-1577) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Manuel Sesario Depineda, proceeding in 

forma pauperis, appeals prose from the district court's order 

dismissing his 42 u.s.c. § 1983 complaint against Denver District 

Attorney, Normans. Early, Jr. and his two deputy district 

attorneys, Lamar Sims and David Olivas. Plaintiff, an inmate in 

the custody of the Colorado State Department of Corrections, was 

convicted of murder in the first degree in 1988 in Denver District 

* 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. 

** 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 cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-1334 Document: 010110031227 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 1 
Court. His§ 1983 complaint alleged that defendant prosecutors 

proffered perjured testimony at his trial and caused him to be 

convicted in violation of the constitutional prohibition against 

ex post facto legislation. The federal district court, upon 

recommendation by the magistrate judge pursuant to D. Colo. R. 

605, dismissed plaintiff's complaint, holding that defendant 

prosecutors were absolutely immune from civil liability under 

§ 1983 for their actions and conduct in prosecuting plaintiff. 

In reviewing the record and construing plaintiff's prose 

pleadings liberally as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

(1972), we find no legal basis for the complaint. It is wellestablished that "[a] prosecutor is absolutely immune for 

activities which are 'intimately associated with the judicial 

process' such as initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution." 

Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686 (10th Cir. 1990) (quoting 

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)). Plaintiff's 

complaint points to improprieties which allegedly occurred during 

the course of his trial. Clearly, prosecutorial conduct at trial 

occurs in the course of "pursuing a criminal prosecution." Id. 

Therefore, defendants' alleged conduct fits squarely within the 

absolute immunity rule and we may affirm the district court's 

dismissal because the action is frivolous under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1915(d). Under§ 1915(d), a judge may dismiss as frivolous "a 

claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory .. o II 

• I an 

example of such a claim is one "against which it is clear that the 

defendants are immune from suit." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1334 Document: 010110031227 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 2 
319, 327 (1989). See also McKinney v. Oklahoma, No. 90-6282, 

(10th Cir. Feb. 8, 1991) (discussion of the standard for dismissal 

under§ 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court. 1 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

1 Plaintiff further contends that defendants defaulted by not 

filing a notice of appearance as required by 10th Cir. R. 46.1. 

This argument is meritless because defendants' counsel filed a 

brief, and the rule expressly provides that "attorneys who 

authorize their names to appear on papers filed in this court 

shall be deemed to have entered an appearance .... " 10th Cir. 

R. 46.1. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1334 Document: 010110031227 Date Filed: 03/20/1991 Page: 3