Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01206/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01206-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~.v 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United St.ates Court of Appealf Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., > Clerk . 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF COLORADO; CITY AND COUNTY OF 

DENVER, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 92-1206 

) (D.C. No. 92-N-605) 

) (D. Colo. ) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Petitioner appeals the district court's dismissal of his 

petition for declaratory and injunctive relief. He sought a 

declaration that certain "practices and procedures" of the Denver, 

Colorado, police and the state district court are 

* 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: 92-1206 Document: 010110220173 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
unconstitutional, that he was being denied a speedy trial , and 

that several state statutes are constitutional. At the time this 

action was filed, plaintiff was awaiting trial on charges of 

sexual assault, criminal extortion, and being an habitual 

offender. He has since been tried, convicted, and sentenced t o 

life imprisonment. 

The following issues are raised on appeal: 

1. "U.S. Magistrate 0. Edward Schlatter lied in his 

report . " 

By this statement Mr. Green challenges the magistrate judge's 

statement that Mr. Green "does not allege that he has presented 

any of the claims to the Colorado courts," insisting that he 

presented his claims by way of petitions for writ of habeas corpus 

filed in both the state trial court and the state supreme court. 

2 . "The State Court 

exhausted." 

Rtemedies [sic] have been 

Mr. Green here argues that because he presented his 

constitutionality claims to the state supreme court by way of an 

original petition for writ of habeas corpus, he has exhausted 

state remedies. 

3. "The district court has erred in refusing to issue 

show cause order." 

Mr. Green contends that contrary to the magistrate judge's 

report and recommendation, he has not asked the federal court to 

intervene in state court proceedings. 

4. "The U.S. District Court is applying the law in 

contradictory manner." 

Here, Mr. Green complains that in another of his cases, No. 

92 -N-602, a show cause order was issued, but that in this case one 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1206 Document: 010110220173 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
was not. He claims this alleged inconsistency "v i olates the 

'fundamental fairness' principle of the due process clause o f the 

Fift h Amendment." 

As t o the first issue, the record reflects that in h i s 

"Motion for Immediate Court Evidentiary hearing," Mr. Green stated 

that he had submitted petitions for writ of habeas corpus to both 

the state trial court and the state supreme court. The only 

d ocumentary evidence in support of this claim in the record is a 

copy of a letter written to another magistrate judge stating that 

the state court had denied his habeas petitions and a copy of an 

order of the state supreme court denying the petition f i led in 

that court . 

That the magistrate judge may have incorrectly concluded that 

Mr. Green had not presented his claims to the state c ourts is 

irrelevant. This action was dismissed not for lack of exhaustion 

but because the rulings Mr. Green sought would have required 

improper interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings. 

Accordingly, and specifically without deciding whether Mr. Green 

has in fact exhausted state remedies, we conclude that the first 

two issues are without legal merit. 

Mr . Gre en contends in issue number three that he did no t 

request the district court t o interfere with the state criminal 

proceedings but merely that certain state statutes and police and 

c ourt practices be de clared unconstitutional. 1 

1 Although he makes much of this supposed distinction, we note 

t hat the petition is entitled "Petition for Declaratory a nd 

I njuncti ve Relief f or Violation of U.S . Constitution" and that he 

s pecific all y asked that t he distric t c ourt "issue d e claratory and 

3 

(continued on next page ) 

Appellate Case: 92-1206 Document: 010110220173 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
In Younger v. Harris, 4 01 U. S. 37, 4 6 (1 971 ) , t he Supreme 

Court held that it was improper for a federal court to enjoin 

ongo ing state criminal pro ceedings absent irreparable injury that 

is both great and immediate. Because the injury Harris faced was 

"solely 'that incident al to every criminal proceeding brought 

lawfully and in good faith,' ... he is not entitled to equitable 

relief 'even if such statutes are unconstitutional.'" Id. at 49 

(citations omitted). The Court further held, in light of Samuels 

v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971 ) , that "declaratory relief is also 

improper when a prosecution involving the challenged statute is 

pending in state court at the time the federal suit is initiated." 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 41 n.2. Thus the district court 

properly grounded its dismissal of this action on the "fundamental 

po licy against federal interference with state criminal 

prosecutions." Id. at 46 . 

Finally, because Mr. Green was clearly not entitled t o 

relief, the district court's failure to issue an order to show 

cause was not improper. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

(c ontinued from previous page ) 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

injunctive relief against the state of Colorado and the City and 

County o f Denver" f or these alleged violations. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1206 Document: 010110220173 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4