Carrillo v. Coffman
663 F. App'x 680
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Alfonso Carrillo sued multiple government officials alleging they prosecuted him to impede his challenges to property foreclosures, asserting violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Fair Housing Act.
- The District of Colorado dismissed the amended complaint in full: several defendants for lack of service; many official-capacity claims on standing and Eleventh Amendment grounds; and multiple individual-capacity claims on statute-of-limitations, prosecutorial immunity, and Heck doctrine grounds.
- The district court also dismissed municipal/official-capacity claims for failure to allege a policy or custom, rejected an unspecified statutory challenge for failing to identify statutes, and found the FHA allegations insufficient to show race-motivated coercion or intimidation.
- The court denied leave to amend because Carrillo offered nothing suggesting he could cure the defects.
- Carrillo appealed; the Tenth Circuit accepted his appeal under the prison-mailbox rule but limited review to the judgment (not a later motion for reconsideration entered after his notice of appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/timeliness of appeal | Notice timely under prison-mailbox rule | District judgment is appealable; post-judgment order not before court | Appeal timely under prison-mailbox rule; cannot review post-judgment reconsideration entered after notice of appeal |
| Dismissal on substantive grounds (statute of limitations, immunity, Heck, Eleventh Amendment, failure to state a claim) | Broad assertions of discrimination and rights violations; sought reversal | District court properly applied defenses and pleading standards to each claim | Affirmed: Court accepted pleadings but found claims barred or inadequately pleaded; dismissal proper and leave to amend denied |
| Magistrate judge referrals and procedures | Referral to magistrate and no evidentiary hearing denied Carrillo procedural rights | Referrals permitted by statute; no hearing required where decision based on law | Forfeited some objection for not raising below; in any event referrals proper and no prejudice from lack of hearing |
| Effect of defendants filing motions to dismiss instead of answers | Motions to dismiss should be treated as admissions of Carrillo’s allegations | Motions to dismiss are proper means to challenge failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b) | Motions to dismiss do not admit allegations; dismissal on legal grounds was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (claim is barred if success would imply invalidity of a conviction)
- Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of dismissal; accept well-pleaded facts)
- Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2011) (requirements for appealing post-judgment orders entered after notice of appeal)
- First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, 229 F.3d 992 (10th Cir. 2000) (magistrate judges may issue proposed findings and recommendations on dispositive motions)