Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01243/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01243-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Enright
Appellee
Dennis Reed Grenemyer
Appellant
Frank Gunter
Appellee
Roy Romer
Appellee

Document Text:

" 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unitm States~~ Appcnb . Tcnt..'i Cl.rCUl" 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DENNIS REED GRENEMYER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROY ROMER, Governor of Colorado; ) 

FRANK GUNTER, Director, Department ) 

of Corrections; RAY ENRIGHT, Director, ) 

Board of Parole of the State of ) 

Colorado, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

SEP 2 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1243 

(D.C. No. 90-B-2072) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

Appellant Dennis Reed Grenemyer, a prisoner in the State of 

Colorado Department of Corrections, brought this action claiming 

monetary damages under 42 u.s.c. § 1983 stemming from parole 

denial. 1 In its final order, Grenemyer v. Romer, No. 90-B-2072 

* 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. 

1 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. 

Appellate Case: 91-1243 Document: 010110090680 Date Filed: 09/26/1991 Page: 1 
• (D.C. Colo. June 28, 1991), the district court first dismissed all 

claims for which the requested relief was release or reduction in 

sentence served, reasoning that such claims may only be pursued 

through a habeas corpus action. Id. at 3. Turning to appellant's 

claims for monetary damages under § 1983, the district court 

examined each named defendant's capacity to be sued in this 

action, including those appellant proposed to add to the action by 

means of amendment to his complaint. The district court concluded 

that those on the state parole board are absolutely immune from 

suit under Colorado law, id. at 4, that those who are officers of 

the state acting in their official capacity are not "persons" for 

purposes of a§ 1983 action pursuant to statute as interpreted by 

several courts, id. at 4-5, that appellant did not allege facts 

sufficient to link officers of the state in their individual 

capacities with the alleged unconstitutional conduct, id. at 5, 

and that the mental health officer at the state prison housing 

appellant had not abridged appellant's constitutional rights. Id. 

at 6. As a result of this analysis, the district court denied 

appellant's motion to amend his complaint to name additional 

defendants and dismissed the requests for release and the§ 1983 

claims in the original complaint. Id. at 7. This appeal 

followed. 

There are two aspects to this case. One involves appellant's 

claims that his sentence was incorrectly computed and that he was 

incorrectly denied parole. Because these claims are claims for 

release or shortened sentence, they are appropriate only in a 

habeas action, and the district court correctly dismissed them as 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1243 Document: 010110090680 Date Filed: 09/26/1991 Page: 2 
inappropriate for a civil action for monetary damages. Freiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1975). 2 

The second factor to this case is appellant's claim for money 

damages under § 1983. These claims are appropriate for our 

review. As a result, we have studied appellant's prose filings 

on appeal, reviewed the initial and supplemental legal authority 

he cited, read the entire district court record, and reviewed the 

legal authority upon which the district court based its decision. 

After consideration of each issue raised by appellant, we conclude 

that the district court was correct in its analysis. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

2 Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the 

district court, which was dismissed for lack of exhaustion of 

administrative remedies. Grenemyer v. Gunter, No. 90-B-1296 

(D.C. Colo. Oct. 30, 1990). The district court's decision was 

affirmed by this court in Grenemyer v. Gunter, No. 90-1332 

(10th Cir. Apr. 8, 1991). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1243 Document: 010110090680 Date Filed: 09/26/1991 Page: 3