Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150106_0000023.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-26 11:04:13
Document Index: 365079217

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Quinn v. Dequardo
Quinn v. Dequardo
MAURICE E. QUINN, Plaintiff,v.JOHN DeQUARDO, M.D., Pueblo State Hospital, SARA WELTON, Public Defender, BILLY BOUNDS, Public Defender, ERIC ZALES, Public Defender, JUDGE MARTIN EGGLENHOFF, Denver District Court, BRIAN WIGGETT, Psy. D. Staff Psychologist, DEN D.A. ALLISON JENNINGS, and JUDGE CHRISTINA HABAS, Denver District Court, Defendants.
Plaintiff Maurice E. Quinn is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections and currently is incarcerated at the Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Cañon City, Colorado. Plaintiff, acting pro se, initiated this action by filing a Prisoner Complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff asserts three claims regarding his court-ordered prescribed medication. Overall, Plaintiff appears to challenge the affect the prescribed medication had on his ability to participate in his state criminal proceeding and to enter into a knowing and voluntary plea, and his current inability to feed himself, dial the telephone to talk to his family, tie his shoes, push himself in a wheelchair, to which he is confined. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have violated his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff seeks release from prison, declaratory relief and money damages.
First, Plaintiff's request for release based on the alleged constitutional violations in his criminal proceeding more properly is addressed in a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 504 (1973). Habeas corpus claims may not be raised in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The Supreme Court has explained the role of habeas and civil rights actions as follows:
Finally, Defendants Sara Welton, Billy Rounds, Eric Zales, Judge Martin Egglenhoff, Allison Jennings, and Judge Christina Habas are immune from suit for the reasons stated below.
Defendants Judge Martin Egglenhoff and Judge Christina Habas are absolutely immune from liability in civil rights suits when they act in their judicial capacity, unless they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Morales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991); Stump v. Scarman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1994). Questions of competency are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.'" See Wolf v. Scobie, 28 F.App'x 545, 548 (7th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). Judges Egglenhoff and Habas were acting in their judicial capacity when they ruled on Plaintiff's competency to proceed at trial and his prescribed medications; they were not acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Defendant Allison Jennings is entitled to absolute immunity in § 1983 suits for activities within the scope of her prosecutorial duties. See Ambler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-24 (1976); The Tenth Circuit has found that state prosecutors' "decisions to prosecute, their investigatory or evidence-gathering actions, their evaluation of evidence, their determination of whether probable cause exists, and their determination of what information to show the court" are activities intimately associated with the judicial process. See Nielander v. Bd. of County Comm'rs., 582 F.3d 1155, 1164 (10th Cir. 2009). Any part Defendant Jennings played in negotiating a plea with Plaintiff is within the scope of her prosecutorial duties.
Defendants Sara Welton, Billy Bounds, and Eric Zales, whether private attorneys or public defenders, who represented Plaintiff, are not state actors under § 1983 and are not proper parties to this action. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318 and 325 (1981).
Plaintiff, therefore, will be directed to file an Amended Complaint that addresses only claims properly brought in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against properly named defendants.
Plaintiff is directed that to state a claim in federal court he must explain (1) what a defendant did to him; (2) when the defendant did it; (3) how the defendant's action harmed him; and (4) what specific legal right the defendant violated. Nasious v. ...