Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01313/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01313-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 11, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD VALDEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

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

No. 07-1313

(D.C. No. 07-CV-740-ZLW)

(D. Colo.)

Appellate Case: 07-1313 Document: 0101108020 Date Filed: 01/11/2008 Page: 1 
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 -

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

Appellate Case: 07-1313 Document: 0101108020 Date Filed: 01/11/2008 Page: 2 
en banc. See also 10th Cir. R. 35.1(A). Accordingly, the request is denied. 

- 3 -

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

Appellate Case: 07-1313 Document: 0101108020 Date Filed: 01/11/2008 Page: 3