Elias v. DeLapp, 4:17-cv-00220

Plaintiff Marsden Voltaire Elias, a pro se state prisoner, sued Washington County District Judge Curtis L. DeLapp under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his conviction for child abuse and alleging the judge maliciously blocked relief and appeals.
Elias claimed he was not fully advised of plea consequences and asserted factual innocence; he sought vacatur and exoneration.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim, finding Judge DeLapp entitled to absolute judicial immunity for actions related to the criminal prosecution.
The court also explained that challenges to conviction or sentence (factual innocence, plea advice) must be pursued via habeas corpus, not a civil rights suit.
Elias moved for reconsideration, arguing the court failed to address 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and separate claims; the court treated the motion as Rule 60(b) relief.
The court denied Rule 60(b) relief as extraordinary and inappropriate here, and left the filing-fee payment obligation in place.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Elias may use § 1983 to obtain vacatur/exoneration of his conviction	Elias contends his conviction is bogus and seeks vacatur/exoneration through § 1983	Judge DeLapp asserts judicial acts in the prosecution are immune from § 1983 suit	Dismissed: Claims attacking conviction/sentence must be brought via habeas, not § 1983
Whether Judge DeLapp is protected by absolute judicial immunity for actions in the criminal case	Elias alleges malicious conduct and interference with appeals	DeLapp argues absolute judicial immunity bars suit for judicial acts in prosecution	Held: Absolute judicial immunity applies; suit fails against Judge DeLapp
Whether the court erred by invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and denying reconsideration	Elias argues the court did not consider § 1343(a)(3) and separate claims	Court: § 1343 confirms jurisdiction only; does not confer entitlement to relief; Rule 60(b) relief not warranted	Held: Motion to reconsider (treated as Rule 60(b)) denied; jurisdiction acknowledged but relief denied

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers Union, 446 U.S. 719 (1980) (judicial immunity protects judges from § 1983 suits for judicial acts)
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (scope of immunity for judicially related conduct)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings must be liberally construed)
Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary)
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000) (standards for granting Rule 60(b) relief)
Caribou Four Corners v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 443 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1971) (motions under Rule 60(b) addressed to district court discretion)