A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, (c o n tin u e d ...) FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 7, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT RO DOL F O R I VE RA ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. TR A V I S CO RM A N EY , U . S. Pr o b a t i o n Off

i c e r ; KU RT RU NG E, P r o b a t i o n Offi c e r ; CH AD C H A D D I C K , Par ol e O ffi cerD i vi s i on o f A d u lt P a ro le a n d C o m m u n ity C o rre c tio n s; L A R R Y S T U A R T , P a ro le O ffi cerD i vi s i on of A dul tPar ol e and Commu n i tyCorr e c t i o n s ; W ESLE Y W A R D , P athw ay s D ir ec tor; R I C H A R D H E R R A N E N , For m er P at hw ay s D i rect or; R O S E M A R Y J. K JE L D G A A R D , P athw ay s C o u n selo r; D IR E C T O R O F S U M M IT CO UNS E L I NG; M AR I ON AVO Y, S um m i tC ou nsel i ng ; H A R V E Y J. H O D G E , PhD , C ent erof Fam i l yand M a r i t a l T r e a t me n t ; YVONN E S L E T T A , E v a lu a to r C e n ter o f F a m ily a n d M a rital T re a tm e n t,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1485 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - c v - 0 1 7 1 4 - E WN - MJ W)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *( . . . cont i nued) * and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 .

- 2- B efor e HENR Y and AN DE RS ON , C i r cui tJ udges , and BROR BY , S e n io r C irc u it J udge.

Pl ai nt i ff- appel l antR odol fo R i ver a, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f h i s c i v i l r i g h t s c o mp l a i n tfi l e d u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1983 forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m , and bas ed on the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CK GR OUND T h e m a g istra te ju d g e th o ro u g h lyre v iew e d th e fa c ts a ss e rte d in M r. R iv e ra ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. See R . , D oc. 66, at2- 5 ( r evi ew i ng i d. , D o c . 4 ). W e m ere lysu m m arize th o se a sserti o n s h ere . O n S ep tem b er 3 , 1 9 9 9 , M r. R ivera w a s c o n v ic te d in s ta te c o u rt o f ro b b e ry, a s s a u lt, a n d c ri m in a l fir s t d e g re e tr e s p a s s . H e mai nt ai ned hi s i nnocenc e. H e w as s ent ence d t o thi r tyday s i n j ai l , pr obat i on, and thi r ty - s i x w eeks of couns el i ng. A ft erhe att ended the fi r s tei ght een w eeks of cl as s es , couns el orR os emar yJ . Kj el dgaar d di s char ged hi m beca us e he w oul d not admi tgui l tand w r ot e an a l l egedl yder ogat oryr eportt o the s t at e tr i al courtand the- 3-

pr obat i on depart m ent . M r . R i ver a then att ended a notherei ght een w eeks of cl asses atano ther cou nsel i ng center , bu tcou nsel or M ari on A vo yrefused t o p ass h im b ec au se h e w o u ld n o t adm itg u il t, an d sh e w rote a n all eg ed lyd ero g atory r eportt o the s t at e tr i al courtand the pr obat i on depart m ent . M r . R i ver a al l eged thatpr obat i on offi cer s T r avi s C or m aneyand K ur tR unge then i m pos ed a re q u ir e m e n t th a t h e a tte n d a n o th e r e ig h te e n w e e k s o f c o u n s e lin g c la s s e s . Pr obat i on r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs w er e al s o i ni t i at ed. T he s t at e tr i al courtas ked M r . R i ver a t o obt ai n anothereval uat i on, and couns el or s Y vonne Sl ett a and H arveyJ . H odge w r ot e an a l l egedl yder ogat oryr eportt o the tr i al courtbeca us e he w oul d notadmi tgui l t . O n J une 25, 2001, the s t at e tr i al courtr evoked M r. R ivera ’s pro b ati o n an d rese n tenc ed h im to tw o y ea rs i n p ri so n . M r. R ivera w a s re lea se d o n F rid a y , N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 2 , w ith in stru c tio n s to c a ll h is p a ro le o ffice r a s s o o n a s h e a rriv e d in C o lo ra d o S p rin g s. H e a ss e rte d th a t h e tried to cal l , butgotan ans w er i ng m achi ne w i th no opt i on forthe off i cerhe had be en di r ect ed t o cal l . H e w entt o the par ol e off i ce i n per s on on the fol l ow i ng M onday and w as arr es t ed bypar ol e off i cer s C had C haddi ck and LarryStuart . H e w as r el eas ed af

t era fe w day s . T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s overturned the r evoca t i on of M r . R i ver a’ s pr obat i on i n D ece m ber2003, and hi s s ent ence w as v a c a te d b yth e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt in A p ri l 2 0 0 4 . M r . R i ver a, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, fi l ed hi s i ni t i al ci vi l r i ght s compl ai nton S e p te m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 5 , i d. , D oc. 3, and fi l ed an a m ended c om pl ai nton Sept ember16,- 4-

2 0 0 5 , i d. , D oc. 4. H e sued n um erous defen dan t s ( probati on offi cers , cou nsel ors, and par ol e off

i cer s ) , as s ert i ng thathe had be en s ubj ect ed t o doubl e j eopar dyby thei ri nvol vementw i th the J une 25, 2001, r evoca t i on of hi s pr obat i on, w hi ch re s u lte d in h is b e in g ille g a lly re s e n te n c e d to a tw o -ye a r p ri s o n te rm , s ee i d. a t 6 ¶ 2 8 , o r b yth e ir in v o lv e m e n t w ith h is D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 2 , arr e st fo r a p a ro le v io la tio n s h o rt ly af

te r h is re le a s e f

ro m p ri s o n , s ee i d. a t 7 ¶ ¶ 3 2 -3 3 . D e fe n d a n ts m o v e d to d is m is s M r. R iv e ra ’s a m e n d e d c o m p la in t o n v a ri o u s g ro u n d s . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e first c o n sid e re d th e m o tio n o f d e fe n d a n ts T ra v is C o rm an eyan d K u rtR u n g e, bo th p rob ati o n o fficers, and C h ad C h ad d ick a n d L arry S tuart, b o th p aro le office rs. T h e m ag istrate jud g e d eterm ined that M r. R ivera ’s o fficia l ca p a c ityc laim s a g a in st th e se d e fe n d a n ts w e re b a rre d b yth e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t, a n d it th e re fo re la c k e d s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e m . R ., D oc. 66, at7. T he magi s tr at e j udge furtherdet erm i ned thatdefe ndant s C or m aney a n d R u n g e w e re e n tit led to a b so lu te ju d icia l im m u n ityb e c a u se th e ir r ecomm endat i ons conce rni ng the r evoca t i on of M r . R i ver a’ s pr obat i on w er e made to th e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt a n d w e re in te g ra lly re la te d to th e ju d ic ia l f u n c tio n . Id. at 8-9 . T h e m ag istrate jud g e d eterm ined that d efen d an ts C h ad d ick a n d S tuart w ere ent i t l ed to qua l i fi ed im m un i tybecau se theyhad “proba ble cause t o arr est a n d h o ld [ M r. R iv e ra ] fo r a p a ro le v io latio n b a se d u p o n h is fa ilu re to re p o rt to par ol e i n a t i m el ym anneras di r ect ed. ” Id. at10. I n the al t ernat i ve, the m agi s tr at e j udge det erm i ned thatthe cl ai m s M r . R i ver a as s ert ed i n hi s Sept ember- 5-

2005 compl ai ntchal l engi ng hi s arr es tbydefe ndant s C haddi ck and Stuarton D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 2 , w e re b a rr e d b yth e a p p lic a b le tw o -ye a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See i d. a t 4 -5 , 1 0 -1 3 . T he magi s tr at e j udge nextcons i der ed the mot i on of defendantY vonne Sl ett a, a pr i vat e couns el orw ho eval uat ed M r . R i ver a and w r ot e a r eportt o the sta te tria l co u rt re c o m m e n d in g jail tim e b e c a u se M r. R iv e ra w o u ld n o t ad m it gui l t . T he magi s tr at e j udge det erm i ned thatM r . R i ver a di d notas s ertthat M s. S let ta w as a stat e a ctor fo r pu rpo ses o f 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 an d d id n o t assert anyfac t s t endi ng t o s how thats he ac t ed i n agr eementand conc ert ed ac t i on w i th a s ta te a c to r. Id. at 14 . F u rth er, th e m ag istrate jud g e n o ted th at th e tri al co u rt re v o k e d M r. R iv e ra ’s p ro b a tio n , n o t M s . S le tta . Id. a t 1 4 -1 5 . T h e m a g istra te j udge furtherdet erm i ned thatM r . R i ver a’ s cl ai m s agai ns tM s . Sl ett a w er e barr ed b ythe a p p li ca b le tw o -y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s b ec au se sh e w rote h er rep o rt so m eti m e b efo re the Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 , rev o ca ti o n o f h is pro b ati o n , w h ich w as m o re th a n tw o y e a rs b e fo re M r. R iv e ra file d s u it in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 5 . See i d. a t 3 -4 , 1 5 . T he m agis trat e j ud ge then co nsi dered t he m oti on of d efen dan tR osem aryJ. Kj el dgaar d, a pr i vat e couns el orw ho di s char ged M r . R i ver a fr om couns el i ng cl as s es beca us e he w oul d notadmi tgui l tand w ho w r ot e a de r ogat oryr eportt o t he s t at e tr i al courtand the pr obat i on depart m ent . T he magi s tr at e j udge i ndi cat ed that M s . Kj el dgaar d w as nota s t at e ac t orforpurpos es of 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and det erm i ned thatM r . R i ver a fa i l ed t o as s ertanyfac t s t endi ng t o s how thats he- 6-

a c te d in a g re e m e n t o r c o n c e rt e d a c tio n w ith a s ta te a c to r. Id. at 15 -17 . F u rth er, the magi s tr at e j udge not ed thatthe tr i al courtr evoked M r . R i ver a’ s pr obat i on, not M s . Kje ld g a a rd . Id. at16. T he magi s tr at e j udge furtherdet erm i ned that M r. R iv e ra ’s c laim s a g a in st M s. Kjeld g a a rd w e re b a rre d b yth e a p p lica b le tw o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons beca us e s he w r ot e herr eports om et i m e befor e the Ju n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 , rev o ca ti o n o f h is pro b ati o n , w h ich w as m o re tha n tw o y ea rs be fo re M r. R iv e ra file d s u it in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 5 . See i d. a t 3 -4 , 1 6 -1 7 . T h e m a g istra te j u d g e c o n c l u d e d th a tth e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s fi l e d b y d e fe n d a n t s C o r m a n e y, R unge, C haddi ck, Stuart , Sl ett a, and Kj el dgaar d s houl d be gr ant ed. T h e m ag istrate jud g e d eterm ined that the re m ainin g fiv e d efen d an ts w ere nots t at e ac t or s and thatM r . R i ver a di d notas s ertanyfac t s t endi ng t o s how that a n yo f th e m a c te d in a g re e m e n t a n d c o n c e rt e d a c tio n w ith a s ta te a c to r. Id. a t 1 7 . B eca us e M r . R i ver a w as pr ocee di ng i n form a paupe r i s , the magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thathi s cl ai m s agai ns tthes e fi ve defendant s be di s m i s s ed for fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) . R ., D o c . 6 6 , a t 1 7 . T he magi s tr at e j udge furtherconcl uded thatthe amended compl ai nts houl d be d is m is s e d w ith p reju d ic e a s to a ll o f th e d e fe n d a n ts . Id. a t 1 8 . M r. R iv e ra file d o bje c tio n s to th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n . Id. , D oc. 70. T he di s tr i ctcourt , not i ng thati t s r evi ew w as de novo, acc ept ed the m a g istra te ju d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n a n d d ism iss e d th e a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w ith p reju d ic e . Id. , D o c . 7 6 . M r. R iv e ra file d th is a p p e a l.- 7- I I . DI S CU S S I ON W hen w e revi ew a dis m i ssal , “t he st and ard of revi ew i s de novo wh e th e rwe tr eatthe appe al as s eeki ng r evi ew of a [ Fed. R . C i v. P. ] R ul e 12( b) ( 1) or12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s al . ” C olo. E nvt l . C oal i t i on v. Wenke r , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 7 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( percur i am). I n addi t i on, “the pr opers t andar d foreval uat i ng di s m i s s al i n a qual i fi ed i m m uni tycas e i s the norm al s t andar d w e appl yt o di s m i s s al s gener al l y . ” Moya v. Schol l enbarger , 4 6 5 F . 3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . We a l s o r e v i e w a d is m is s a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) d e n o v o . See Tr u j i l l o v . Wi l l i a ms , 465 F. 3d 1210, 1215- 16 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “W e mustacc eptal l the w el l - pl eade d al l egati on s of t he co m plai nt as true and m ustcon strue them i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. ” Alv a r a d o v . KOB- T V, L . L . C. , 493 F. 3d 1210, ____ ( 10th C i r . 2007) . “‘ W e l ook forpl aus i bi l i tyi n th[e] compl ai nt . ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v. Tw o m b ly , 127 S. C t . 1955, 1970 ( 2007) ) . W e nee d not a c c e p t c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s . See Moya , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 4 5 5 . M r. R iv e ra a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t: (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t co n d u c t a d e n o v o re v iew o f

th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n ; (2 ) th e m a g istra te ju d g e m iss tate d th e fa c ts o f th e c a se a n d m isa p p lied th e law ; (3 ) th e m a g istra te j udge adopt ed the defendant s ’ ver s i on of the fa ct s t o s uppor thi s det erm i nat i ons that ce rt ain d efen d an ts w ere n o t st ate a ctors o r th at claim s ag ains t th em w ere b arred b ythe s tatu te of li m it ati o n s, o r th at de fe n d an ts C h ad d ick a n d S tuart w ere- 8-

ent i t l ed t o i m m uni ty ; and ( 4) the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notl ack s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on and M r . R i ver a s t at ed a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. W e r ej ectM r . R i ver a’ s concl us oryar gum entthatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d not per form a de novo r evi ew of the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on. T he di s tr i ct co u rtstat ed that itd id so . R . , D o c. 76 , at 2. “W e a ssu m e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt per form ed i t s r evi ew funct i on pr oper l yi n the abs ence of evi dence t o the contr ary . ” G r een v . B r ans on , 1 0 8 F . 3 d 1 2 9 6 , 1 3 0 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). M r. R ivera pr es ent ed no s uch evi dence . W e al s o r ej ectM r . R i ver a’ s ar gum entthatthe magi s tr at e j udge mi s s t at ed the fa ct s and mi s appl i ed the l aw . B as ed on ourr evi ew , the magi s tr at e j udge s et outthe fa ct s as as s ert ed byM r . R i ver a i n hi s amended compl ai nt . I n hi s br i ef on appea l , M r . R i ver a onl ycl ear l ychal l enges one fa ct , and i tappea r s i n one of the m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , noti n the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on. H e ar gues that he w as onl yr equi r ed t o c a llhi s par ol e off i cerw hen he w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on on Fr i day , N ovember29, 2002, nott o reportt o hi s par ol e off i cer , as as s ert ed by d e fe n d a n ts C o rm a n e y , R u n g e , C h a d d ic k , a n d S tu a rt in th e irm o tio n to d is m is s . A pl t . O peni ng B r . at10. T he magi s tr at e j udge, how ever , corr ect l ys t at ed that M r. R iv e ra a ss e rte d th a t h e “ w a s d ire c ted b yh is c a se m a n a g e r to c a ll h is p a ro le offi cerupon hi s arr i val i n C ol or ado Spr i ngs [. ] ” R . D oc. 66, at10. A l though M r. R iv e ra e x p la in e d th a t h e g o t a n a n s w e ri n g m a c h in e w h e n h e c a lle d , i d. , D o c . 4 , a t 7 ¶ 3 2 , h e d id n o t a s s e rt th a t h e s p o k e to a p a ro le o ffic e r t h a t d a y .- 9-

R ather , he admi t t ed thathe di d nots peak t o a par ol e off i cerunt i l the fol l ow i ng M o n d a y , w h e n h e a p p e a re d a t th e p a ro le o ffic e in p e rs o n . Id. , ¶33 . T hu s, M r. R ivera h as n o t dem o n str ated that there is an yerro r i n the m ag istrate jud g e’s concl us i on thatdefe ndant s C haddi ck and Stuarthad “pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tand h o ld th e p lain tiff

fo r a p a ro le v io latio n b a se d u p o n h is fa ilu re to re p o rt to p a ro le i n a t i m el ym anneras di r ect ed. ” Id. , D oc. 66, at10. W e thi nk i ti s i rr el evantthat th e m a g istra te ju d g e u se d th e w o rd “ re p o rt” in ste a d o f re p e a tin g th e w o rd “ c a ll” w h e n h e s ta te d h is c o n c lu s io n . M r. R iv e ra a lso a rg u e s th a t d e fe n d a n ts C h a d d ick a n d S tu a rt, th e p a ro le offi cer s w ho arr es t ed hi m s hor t l yaft erhe w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on, w er e not ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . A pl t . O peni ng B r . at9- 10. H i s r el i ance on Sw i f tv. C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), is m isp lac e d . T h e N in th C irc u it d id s t at e i n thatcas e that“par ol e off i cer s m aycl ai m abs ol ut e i m m uni ty[onl y ] for thos e ac t i ons r el at i ng t o thei rr es pons i bi l i tyt o det erm i ne w hethert o r evoke par ol e[. ] ” Id. at 11 8 9 (qu o tat ion o m itted). T h e m ag istrate jud g e h eld, ho w ev er, thatdefe ndant s C haddi ck and Stuartw er e ent i t l ed onl yt o qual i f i edi m m uni ty , not a b s o lu te im m u n ity. See R . , D oc. 66, at9- 10. M r . R i ver a has noteven a r gued that defe ndant s C haddi ck and Stuartw er e notent i t l ed t o qual i f i edi m m uni ty , and, beca us e he a dm i t t ed thathe di d nots peak t o hi s par ol e off i ceron N ovember29, 2 0 0 2 , as h e a ss e rte d h e h a d b e e n d ire c ted to d o , h e c a n n o t sh o w th a t d e fe n d a n ts C h a d d ick a n d S tu a rt w e re n o t en tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityfo r a rre stin g h im- 10-

w hen he appear ed i n per s on atthe par ol e off i ce on the fol l ow i ng M onday . T he d ism issal of

h is cl aim s ag ains t defen d an ts C h ad d ick a n d S tuart w as th ere fo re p ro p e r. W e d o n o t re a d M r. R iv e ra ’s o p e n in g b rie f to c h a llen g e th e m a g istra te j udge’ s hol di ng thathi s cl ai m s agai ns tdefe ndant s C or m aney , R unge, C haddi ck, a n d S tu a rt in th e iro ffic ia l c a p a c itie s w e re b a rr e d b yth e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. W e a lso d o n o t re a d M r. R iv e ra ’s o p e n in g b rie f to c h a llen g e th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t d e fe n d a n ts C o rm a n e ya n d R u n g e w e re e n tit led to a b so lu te i m m u n i ty . T h e r e fo r e , th e s e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e a ffi r m e d w i th o u td i s c u s s i o n . We need notdi s cus s anyotherar gum ent s di r ect ed atdefe ndant s C or m aney , R unge, C h a d d ic k , a n d S tu a rt . M r . R i ver a ar gues thatthe magi s tr at e j udge err ed i n concl udi ng that defe ndant s Sl ett a, Kj el dgaar d, H odge, and A voyar e nots t at e ac t or s , ar gui ng that he as s ert ed “j oi ntact i on betw een the conc erned D om es t i c V i ol ence s t aff and the stat e.” A p lt . O p en ing B r. at 8-9 . H is asserti o n s ag ains t th e d efen d an ts are c o n c lu so ry , at b e st. F u rth e r, h e d id n o t as se rt a n ysp e c ific fa c ts f ro m w h ich it c o u ld b e in fe rre d th a t th e sta te tria l co u rt d id n o t m a k e a n in d e p e n d e n t d e c isio n to re v o k e h is p ro b a tio n d u e to d e fe n d a n ts ’ i n flu e n c e . See G al lagherv. “Nei lYoung Fre e d o m C o n c e rt” , 49 F. 3d 1442, 1454 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . M r . R i ver a’ s ar gum ent th a t th e se d e fe n d a n ts a re sta te a c to rs is w ith o u t m e rit.- 11-

M r . R i ver a makes no s peci fi c ar gum entw i th r es pectt o the r emai ni ng defe ndant s . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m the di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m s agai ns tthem w i thoutdi s cus s i on. M s. S let ta fil ed a m o ti o n to d ism iss th e a p p ea l, asse rt ing that M r. R ivera ’s not i ce of

appea l w as unt i m el y . W e di s agr ee. T he di s tr i ctcourtent er ed i t s O r der A c c e p tin g M a g is tr a te J u d g e ’s R e c o m m e n d a tio n o n S e p te m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , R ., D oc. 76, butneverent er ed a j udgm enton a s epar at e document , as r equi r ed by Fed. R . C i v. P. 58. U nderR ul e 58( b) ( 2) ( B ) , j udgm entw as deemed ent er ed 150 day s aft erthe entryof the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der . M r . R i ver a fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l on O ct ober27, 2006, R . , D oc. 77— befor e hi s t i m e t o appea l had eve n begun t o run— and i tw as ther efor e t i m el y . M s . Sl ett a’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the a p p e a l is d e n ie d . M r. R iv e ra h a s m o v e d fo r l e a v e to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ri s o n a p p e a l. B eca us e he w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on on N ovember29, 2002, and w as not i ncar cer at ed atthe t i m e he f i l ed thi s appea l , the pr ovi s i ons of the Pr i s on L itig a tio n R e fo rm A c t d o n o t a p p ly to th is a p p e a l. See 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (a), (b), ( h) . M r . R i ver a ther efor e mustdemonstr at e “a fi nanci al i nabi l i tyt o paythe r equi r ed fi l i ng fee s and the exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton the l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” D eBardeleben v . Q ui nlan , 9 3 7 F .2 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). U n d e r th is s tan d a rd , the m o tio n is gr ant ed.- 12- I I I . CO NC L US I ON A p p ell ee S let ta’s m o ti o n to d ism iss th e a p p ea l i s d en ied. A p p ell an t’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on appea l i n form a paupe r i s i s gr ant ed. T he j udgm entof the d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge