Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01218/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Manuel Sesario Depineda
Appellant
Warren O. Martin
Appellee

Document Text:

FILBD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUnited StatesCio~~f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

MANUEL SESARIO DEPINEDA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WARREN Q. MARTIN, Trial Court Judge, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FED O 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1218 

(O.C. No . 91-M-723) 

(Dist. of Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, BARRE"l'T and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9 . The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Manuel Sesario Depineda (Depineda), appearing prose, appeals 

from the district court's order adopting the Magistrate Judge's 

finding that Depineda, as plaintiff, failed to state a claim for 

relief in his 42 u.s.c. S 1983 action and dismissing the 

complaint. 

* 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: 91-1218 Document: 010110221627 Date Filed: 02/03/1992 Page: 1 
From Depineda's rambling prose§ 1983 complaint we discern 

that he is incarcerated in the Fremont Facility at Canon City, 

Colorado, following trial and jury conviction of murder in the 

first degree and sentencing to life imprisonment. The state 

district court judge who presided at the trial was Judge Warren O. 

Martin. Depineda has incorrectly referred to him as Warren 

O'Martin in this action. 

The complaint, as observed by the United States Magistrate 

Judge "[r]ambles on detailing a variety of complaints about what 

occurred during the course of Plaintiff's trial." (R., Vol. I, 

Tab 6, p. 2). Depineda sought the following relief in his 

complaint: Unspecified monetary damages ("equal to the ruling in 

Goodwin"), immediate release, $10,000 a day for actual time 

served, $10,000 a day for accumulated good time, "Plus punitive 

and exemplary damages for the monstrous evil and corrupt deed by 

this court of Warren O 'Martin . " Id. , Tab 3, p. 6. 

The Magistrate Judge observed, and the district court agreed, 

that "A careful review of Plaintiff's Complaint, as well as his 

response to the show cause order, indicates that he (Depineda) is 

complaining about things that took place during the course of his 

trial." Id. Tab 6, p. 3. We agree. The Magistrate Judge 

correctly cited Stump v. SparJanan, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) for the 

rule that this lawsuit is prohibited because a judge, acting in 

his judicial capacity, is absolutely immune from civil rights 

suits, unless the judge acts clearly without any colorable claim 

of jurisdiction. A judge must be free to make decisions, often 

controversial, without concern about possible personal 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1218 Document: 010110221627 Date Filed: 02/03/1992 Page: 2 
repercussions. Id. at 363-64. In Mireles v. Waco, U.S. 

112 s. Ct . 286 (1991), the Supreme Court held that a judge who 

ordered police officers in his courtroom to forcibly seize and 

bring an attorney who was elsewhere in the courthouse to his 

courtroom to answer for his failure to appear for the initial call 

of the morning calendar, was absolutely immune from a 42 U.S.C. S 

1983 suit for damages because the judge was acting in his judicial 

capacity. The Court emphasized that if a judge acts in his 

judicial capacity, "[j]udicial immunity is not overcome by 

allegations of bad faith or malice .... " Accord Pierson v. Ray, 

386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S. Ct. at 1218 (1967} ("[I]mmunity applies 

even when the judge is accused o f acting maliciously and 

corruptly") . Thus, judges are absolutely immune from civil 

liability for conduct performed within their judicial domain. 

Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 686-87 (10th Cir. 1990}, cert. 

denied, U.S. (1991}; Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 

1473-74 (10th Cir. 1990}, cert. denied, U. S. __ (1991}; 

Wiggins v. New Mexico Supreme Court Clerk. 664 F.2d 812, 815 (10th 

Cir. 1981}, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 840 (1982). 

Even should we construe Depineda's S 1983 complaint as a 

petition for habeas corpus relief (he seeks release from prison}, 

the result would be the same because the state court judge he has 

named as defendant is not the person detaining him. Thus, the 

complaint - or petition - names the wrong defe ndant . 

Depineda cannot prove any set of facts under his complaint 

which would entitle him to relief. We affirm the district court's 

Order of Di smissal base d upon the district court's finding that 

- 3-

Appellate Case: 91-1218 Document: 010110221627 Date Filed: 02/03/1992 Page: 3 
"[P]laintiff has failed to state a claim for relief within the 

jurisdiction of this court." Id., Tab 9. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1218 Document: 010110221627 Date Filed: 02/03/1992 Page: 4