Harold v. University of Colorado Hospital, 680 F. App'x 666

Background

In 2014–2015 Olive Harold was placed under the care of Denver Adult Protection Services, made a ward by the Denver Probate Court, and transferred to Highline Rehabilitation and Care Community; she died in November 2015.
Ronald Harold, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (initial complaint filed Sept. 2015), naming multiple state actors, private healthcare providers, and officials, alleging constitutional violations related to guardianship, protection orders, and mistreatment.
The magistrate judge repeatedly found Harold’s pleadings deficient, granted multiple extensions and opportunities to amend, denied appointed counsel twice, and refused to order release of medical records at an early stage.
Harold filed a Second Amended Complaint with 39 claims against ~20 defendants; the district court reviewed it under the IFP frivolousness standard and dismissed all claims with prejudice as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal, denial of counsel, denial of the final extension, denial of access to medical records, and denial of IFP on appeal, concluding Harold failed to plead cognizable § 1983 claims and further amendment would be futile.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of final time extension to amend	Harold needed probate transcripts to support claims	Extension would be futile because Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of state probate judgments	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; transcripts could not cure jurisdictional defect
Denial of appointed counsel	Harold asserted factual complexity and inability to litigate pro se	Court: plaintiff must show meritorious claim to warrant counsel; he failed to do so	Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion given lack of viable claims
Ability to sue on deceased’s behalf in § 1983 action	Harold contended no special paperwork required to pursue wife’s claims	Defendants: § 1983 rights belong to the injured party; estate’s personal representative must sue	Harold cannot bring claims on Olive’s behalf absent proof he is personal representative; claims dismissed
Private healthcare defendants as state actors	Harold argued government regulation/funding (Medicare/Medicaid) renders private providers state actors	Defendants: regulation/funding alone insufficient to show action under color of state law	Court held regulation/funding insufficient; private defendants not state actors
Rooker–Feldman and claims tied to probate proceedings	Harold sought relief that would effectively overturn probate orders	Defendants: federal courts lack authority to review state-court judgments	Claims 'inextricably intertwined' with state proceedings barred by Rooker–Feldman
IFP on appeal after certification of frivolous appeal	Harold moved to proceed IFP on appeal	Appellate court required a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument to proceed IFP	Denied: Harold failed to show a reasoned, nonfrivolous appellate argument

Key Cases Cited

Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining Rooker–Feldman jurisdictional limitations)
Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (test for when private conduct is attributable to the State)
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (government regulation does not alone make private actor a state actor)
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982) (receipt of public funds and contractual ties do not by themselves convert private conduct into state action)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standards for dismissal of frivolous IFP claims)
Berry v. City of Muskogee, Oklahoma, 900 F.2d 1489 (10th Cir. 1990) (§ 1983 claims of a deceased person must be brought by the personal representative)