Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06057/USCOURTS-ca10-16-06057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coy-Ce Coleman
Appellant
Chris Stephens
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

COY-CE COLEMAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CHRIS STEPHENS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 16-6057 

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-01264-C) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Coy-Ce Coleman appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. 

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 Coleman filed suit against Assistant United States Attorney Chris Stephens 

seeking nearly $72 million in damages. He alleged that Stephens violated numerous 

federal laws in prosecuting him for two counts of interstate stalking. Stephens filed a 

motion to dismiss, raising various defenses including absolute prosecutorial 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 23, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-6057 Document: 01019644137 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 Page: 1 
2 

immunity. The district court dismissed the complaint on that ground. Coleman 

timely appeals. 

Because Coleman’s allegations against Stephens—to the extent that we can 

discern them—stem solely from Stephens’ actions in prosecuting Coleman, we agree 

with the district court that Stephens is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. 

See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (“[I]n initiating a prosecution and 

in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for 

damages . . . .”). 

 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-6057 Document: 01019644137 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 Page: 2