*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 30 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD L. PARTRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CLINT S. JUDKINS and JOHN D. SORGE, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-4133 (D.C. No. 97-CV-39J) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, BRORBY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is 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. There fore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. Richard L. Partridge, appearing pro se and seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismis sal of his complaint against-2-

Clint S. Judkins, a state court judge, and John D. Sorge, a county prosecutor. In his complaint, he alleged jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code 78-3-4 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986. Partridge sought declaratory jud gment, equitable relief including injunctive relief, and both compensatory and punitive damages. We deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis and di smiss the appeal as frivolous. This case arises out of Partridge’s prosecution in Box Elder County Justice Court for various traffic violations. Judkins was the presiding judge and Sorge was the county prosecutor at Partridge’s trial. Ac cording to Partridge’s complaint, Judkins and Sorge denied him various pro cedural rights during the course of his criminal trial. The district court g ranted defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding Partridge’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. More specifically, the court con cluded both defendants were entitled to absolute immunity from suit. See Stump v. Sparkman , 435 U.S. 349, 355-57 (1978) (discussing absolute judicial immunity); Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 420 (1976) (discussing prosecutorial immu nity). In addition, because Partridge’s claims called into question the validity of his underlying criminal convictions, the court concluded Partridge was requ ired to first show his convictions had been reversed on direct appeal, exp unged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called int o question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87-3-

(1994). The court further concluded Partridge’s al legations concerning violation of his constitutional rights, including his right t o due process, are issues more appropriately addressed by the state appellate court in a timely appeal from his state court convictions. We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and agree with the district court’s expressed reasons for dismissal. Therefore , we conclude the appeal is frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The appeal is DISMISSED and the request for permiss ion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. The mandate sh all issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge