T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT W I LLI S ROU SE, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. CO L OR ADO S T AT E BO AR D OF P AR OL E ; S HE RR I S T ONE KI NG, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 1036 ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 2 2 4 8 - WYD)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** W il li s R o u se, an inm ate a p p ea ri n g p ro se , ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s 42 U . S. C . § 1983 cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndant s - A ppel l ees C ol or ado S tat e B o ard o f P aro le (“the B o ard ”) a n d C o lorad o C o rrecti o n s O fficer S h erri S ton ek ing in h er o ffici al ca p ac ity , as w ell as th e c o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entt o O ffi cerSt oneki ng i n heri ndi vi dual capa ci ty . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on- 2 -

p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m.

B ackgr ound M r. R o u s e w a s p a ro le d f ro m C o lo ra d o s ta te c u s to d yin N o v e m b e r 1 9 9 8 . Two y e a r s l a t e r , h e wa s a r r e s t e d fo ra p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n a n d p l a c e d i n th e Ad a ms C ou ntyD et enti on F aci l i tyi n B ri gh t on , C olor ado . In Feb ruary20 02 , M r. R ou se w as agai n r el eas ed on par ol e. T hen, i n J ul y2003, M r . R ous e w as agai n arr es t ed fo ra p a r o l e v i o l a t i o n a n d r e tu r n e d t o th e Ad a ms Co u n tyDe t e n t i o n F a c i l i ty . He w as s chedul ed t o be r el eas ed fr om cus t odyon J une 18, 2004. T h e B o a rd sc h e d u led a h e a rin g re g a rd in g M r. R o u se ’s s e c o n d p a ro le vi ol at i on i n A ugus t2003, butt he hea r i ng w as cont i nued s ever al t i m es dur i ng the ens ui ng ei ghtm onths . O n M ay26, 2004, the B oar d hel d i t s hear i ng and r ece i ved ev iden ce reg ard ing the v iolati o n , b u t i t did n o t r en d er a d ec isi o n . A lth o u g h M r. R ous e’ s di s char ge dat e w as J une 18, he w as notr el eas ed atthatt i m e. I ns t ead, t he B o a rd sc h e d u led a n a d d iti o n a l h e a rin g in O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 . T h e B o a rd o fficia lly r evoked M r . R ous e’ s par ol e on O ct ober13, 2004, and he w as r el eas ed fr om c u sto d ytw e lv e d a y s la ter . H o w e v e r, M r. R o u se w a s im m e d iate lytak e n in to cus t odyon an unr el at ed cha r ge. I n N ovember2004, M r . R ous e fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntal l egi ng t hatthe B oar d and O ffi cerSt oneki ng w r ongful l yi m pr i s oned hi m for136 day s betw een J une 18, 2004, w hen hi s t erm of i m pr i s onm entended, and O ct ober25, 2004,- 3 -

w h e n h e w a s fin a llyre lea se d f ro m c u sto d y . M r. R o u se so u g h t d isc h a rg e o f h is p aro le an d release fro m cu stod yas w ell as $ 6 8 , 0 0 0 in d am ag es. T h e d istri ct co u rt d e n ied M r. R o u se ’s r e p e a ted re q u e sts fo r a p p o in ted c o u n se l. T h e m a g istra te j udge t o w hom the ca s e had be en as s i gned then r ecomm ended gr ant i ng the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he cl ai m s agai ns tthe B oar d and O ffi cerSt oneki ng in h e r o ffic ia l c a p a c ity o n th e g ro u n d s o f E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t im m u n ity. A lth o u g h M r. R o u se fil ed a ti m elyo bjecti o n , the d istri ct co u rtad o p ted th e re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n . M r. R o u se su b se q u e n tlyso u g h t to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t to add a c l ai m agai ns tB oar d C hai r m an A l l en St anl ey , butthe di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed thi s m ot i on. M r . R ous e and O ffi cerSt oneki ng then fi l ed cr os s - m ot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent ; t he di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand re c o m m e n d a tio n d e n y in g M r. R o u se ’s m o tio n b u t g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to O ffi cerSt oneki ng i n heri ndi vi dual capa ci ty . M r . R ous e s oughtaddi t i onal di s covery , butt he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed thi s m ot i on.

D i s cus s i on A s w e under s t and hi s appea l , M r . R ous e cl ai m s t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n ( 1) di s m i s s i ng hi s cl ai m s agai ns tt he B oar d and O ffi cerSt oneki ng i n her offi ci al capa ci ty , and ( 2) gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o O ffi cerSt oneki ng i n her i ndi vi dual capa ci ty ; and abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n ( 3) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o amend h is c o m p lain t, (4 ) d e n y in g h is m o tio n s fo r a p p o in ted c o u n se l, an d (5 ) d e n y in g h is- 4 -

r eques tforaddi t i onal di s covery . W e addr es s eac h of thes e cont ent i ons i n tur n. I. E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t Im m u n ity W e r evi ew a di s m i s s al underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) de novo. H i gh C o u n tryC it izen s A ll ianc e v . C larke , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In conduct i ng ourr evi ew , w e as s um e the truth of the pl ai nt i ff’ s w el l - pl eade d fac tual al l egat i ons and vi ew them i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pl ai nt i ff. I d. at1180- 81. A ddi t i onal l y , w e gi ve a mor e gene r ous cons truct i on t o a pr o s e compl ai nt than w e affor d t o form al pl eadi ngs dr aft ed byl aw y er s . H ai nes v. K erner , 404 U . S. 519, 520 ( 1972) . N everthel es s , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai nt u n les s it c o n tain s “ e n o u g h fa c ts to sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is p lau sib le o n its fa c e .” B e ll A tl. C o rp . v . T w o m b ly, _

__ U .S .___ , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 7 4 (2 0 0 7 ). T he El eventh A m endmentbar s a s ui tform oneydamages agai ns ta s t at e by its o w n c iti z e n s. E d e lm a n v . Jo rd a n , 4 1 5 U .S . 6 5 1 , 6 6 2 -6 3 (1 9 7 4 ). T h is i m m uni tyfr om s ui text ends t o the s t at e’ s agenc i es and off i cer s . See M t . H eal thy C ityS c h . D ist. B d . o f E d u c . v . D o y le, 4 2 9 U .S . 2 7 4 , 2 8 0 (1 9 7 7 ). T h e ru le r ecogni zes t hat“a s ui tagai ns ta s t at e off i ci al i n hi s orheroffi ci al capa ci tyi s not a s ui tagai ns tt he off

i ci al butr atheri s a s ui tagai ns tthe off i ci al ’ s offi ce. A s s uch, it i s n o d iffe re n t f

ro m a su it ag a in st th e S tate itse lf.” W ill v . M ich . D e p ’t o f S tate Pol i ce, 491 U . S. 58, 71 ( 1989) . A ccor di ngl y , the B oar d–a s t at e age ncycr eat ed pur s uantt o C ol o. R ev. St at . § 17- 2- 201–and O ffi cerSt oneki ng–i n heroffi ci al capa ci tyas par ol e off i cerempl oy ed bythe C ol or ado D epart m entof- 5 -

C o rrecti o n s– are im m u n e f rom M r. R o u se’s c lai m fo r m o n eyd am ag es. M r. R ous e’ s cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef i s m ootbeca us e he i s no l ongeri n cus t odyfor h is pa role v iolati o n . T h ere fo re, th e d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yd ism issed M r. R o u se’s § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m s a g a i n s tt h e B o a r d a n d O ffi c e rS t o n e k i n g i n h e ro ffi c i a l c a p a c i ty. I I . Per s onal Par t i ci pat i on W e re v iew d e n o v o th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to O ffi cerSt oneki ng i n heri ndi vi dual capa ci ty , us i ng t he s ame st andar d appl i ed by the di s tr i ctcourt . C ar dos o v. C al bone, ___F. 3d___, 2007 W L 1739694, at*2 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ). S um m aryj ud gm ent i s approp ri at e w hen the p l eadings, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to in ter ro g a to rie s, a d m iss io n s o r a ffid a v its sh o w th a t th e re is no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). “I n or derforl i abi l i tyt o ar i s e under§ 1983, a defendant ’ s di r ectper s onal r es pons i bi l i tyforthe cl ai m ed depr i vat i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtm us tbe e s ta b lis h e d .” T rujillo v . W illia m s , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 2 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A ccor di ngl y , the pl ai nt i ff i s r equi r ed t o s how an affi r m at i ve l i nk betw een the defe ndant ’ s conductand anycons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. St i dham v. Peace O ffi cer St andar ds & T r ai ni ng, 265 F. 3d 1144, 1156- 57 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . T he di s tr i ct courtconcl uded thatM r . R ous e fa i l ed t o s how s uch a l i nk, r eas oni ng t hatO ffi cer St oneki ng w as nota mem berorempl oy ee of the B oar d and ther efor e “w as not r es pons i bl e fort he r evoca t i on hear i ng bei ng hel d aft er[M r . R ous e’ s ] di s char ge- 6 -

d a te.” R . D o c . 1 0 5 , at 3 . T h is a n a ly sis w a s c o rre c t. T h e B o a rd ’s d e c isio n to cont i nue the r evoca t i on hear i ng al l egedl ydepr i ved M r . R ous e of hi s r i ght s , but th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t O ffic e r S to n e k in g h a d a n yro le in th is d e c is io n . Sum m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at el yent er ed. I I I . M ot i on t o A m end the C om pl ai nt “W e r evi ew a deni al of l eave t o amend a compl ai ntforabus e of d iscreti o n . ” B arfiel d v . C o m m erc e B an k , N . A . , 4 8 4 F . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2007) . T he di s tr i ctcourti s j us t i fi ed i n deny i ng t he mot i on t o amend i f the pr opos ed amendm entcoul d nothave w i ths t ood a mot i on t o di s m i s s . W al kerv. E lbert, 7 5 F . 3 d 5 9 2 , 5 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). M r. S tan ley, a c tin g in h is o fficia l ca p a c itya s C h a irm a n o f th e B o a rd , is e n tit led to im m u n ityf ro m su it p u rsu a n t to th e E lev e n th A m e n d m e n t. S e e W ill , 491 U . S. at71; E del m an, 415 U . S. at663. M or eover , M r . R ous e’ s m ot i on t o add M r. S tanleyall eg ed n o fa cts d em o n str ati n g an affirm ati v e li n k b etw ee n M r. S tanley ’s i n d ividu al co n d u ct an d the c o n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion . L ikew ise, M r. R ous e has notpoi nt ed t o anyevi dence i n the r ecor d fr om w hi ch s uch a l i nk m ay b e in fe rre d . T h e re fo re , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M r. R o u se ’s m o tio n to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. I V . R eques tforA ppoi nt ed C ouns el 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 1) gr ant s the tr i al cour tdi s cr et i on t o appoi ntan att orneyfora pr i s on l i t i gantotherw i s e unabl e t o affor d couns el , butther e i s no- 7 -

aut om at i c r i ghtt o appoi nt m entof couns el i n a ci vi l r i ght s cas e. B ar anow s ki v. H art , 486 F. 3d 112, 126 ( 5th C i r . 2007) . I n det erm i ni ng w hethert o appoi nt couns el , the di s tr i ctcourts houl d cons i derthe mer i t s of the l i t i gant ’ s cl ai m s , the n a tu re a n d c o m p lex ityo f th e fa c tu a l an d leg a l issu e s, a n d th e lit ig a n t’s a b ili tyto i nves t i gat e the fa ct s and t o pr es enthi s cl ai m s . H i l l v. Sm i thK l i ne B eec ham C o rp., 3 9 3 F . 3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). “W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s r efus al t o appoi ntcouns el foran i ndi gentpr i s oneri n a ci vi l cas e forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” I d. I ti s cl earfr om t he r ecor d–w hi ch di s cl os es thatM r . R ous e s oughtthe appoi nt m entof couns el num er ous t i m es –thatM r . R ous e di d notfee l capa bl e of re p re se n tin g h im se lf

a d e q u a tely . H o w e v e r, th e fa c t th a t ap p o in tin g c o u n se l w o u ld h a v e a ss iste d M r. R o u se in p re se n tin g h is s tro n g e st p o ss ib le c a se is n o t en o u g h to w arr antr ever s al ; t he s ame coul d be s ai d i n al m os teverypr o s e ca s e. See R ucks v. B oer germ ann, 57 F. 3d 978, 979 ( 10th C i r . 1995) . T he di s tr i ctcour tut i l i zed the p roper s t and ard and determ i ned that M r. R ou se w as “abl e t o p res ent hi s case adequa t el y . ” R . D oc. 24, at1. M r . R ous e w as abl e t o r ecountthe fa ct s , and the d istric t co u rt u n d e rsto o d h is c laim s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g M r. R o u se ’s r e p e a ted m o tio n s fo r a p p o in ted c o u n se l. V . M o ti o n fo r E v iden ti aryH ea ri n g an d A d d it ion al D isco v ery A f ter th e m a g istra te ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t to O ffi cerSt oneki ng, butbefor e the di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the r eportand- 8 -

rec o m m en d ati o n , M r. R o u se re q u ested ad d it ion al disco v ery . C o n stru ing M r. Ro u s e ’ s r e q u e s ta s a mo t i o n fo rd i s c o v e ryp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. Ci v . P . 5 6 ( f ) , we rev iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial fo r an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . B ldg . & C o n str . D ep’ tv. R ockw el l I nt ’ l C orp. , 7 F. 3d 1487, 1496 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . W e have hel d, ho w ever, that the d i stri ctcou rtdo es not abuse i t s di scr et i on w hen i tden i es a m ot i on t o or derdi s coverythati s of “que s t i onabl e r el evanc e t o the mot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent . ” B ur ke v. U t ah Tra ns i tA uth. & L ocal 382, 462 F. 3d 1253, 1 2 6 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). H e re , w e c a n n o t im a g in e w h a t ev id e n c e M r. R o u se c o u ld have di s cover ed thatw oul d have pe r m i t t ed hi s cl ai m t o s ur vi ve O ffi cer St oneki ng’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T her e ca n be no genui ne di s put e that O ffi cerSt oneki ng l acke d the author i tyt o contr ol the B oar d’ s deci s i on t o cont i nue the r evoca t i on hear i ng. G i ven thi s l ack of author i ty , M r . R ous e coul d nothave s how n a di r ectl i nk betw een a nyact i on byO ffi cerSt oneki ng and hi s as s er t ed i nj ury . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge