Prestwich v. Shelby, 1:22-cv-00007

Pro se plaintiff Rebecca Prestwich, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Judge Robert A. Lund, Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby, attorney Brandon C. Bowen, and guardian ad litem Adam D. Spencer arising from a Utah state-court custody dispute.
Prestwich alleges the judge, opposing counsel, and guardian lied and "facilitated the kidnapping" of her daughter; she further alleges Shelby ignored a criminal complaint she submitted and breached a contract.
She pleaded causes under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, and various criminal statutes and sought monetary damages.
The court found her original and amended complaints long, rambling, and noncompliant with Rule 8; it ordered a second amended complaint by February 22, 2022, which Prestwich did not file.
The magistrate concluded the pleadings fail to state plausible claims, monetary damages against judges are barred by immunity, conspiracy claims lack required factual and class-based allegations, and criminal statutes are not privately enforceable; because amendment would be futile, dismissal with prejudice was recommended.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) / Rule 12(b)(6)	Prestwich contends constitutional and statutory violations entitle her to money damages.	Pleadings are conclusory, implausible, fail to give fair notice, and some defendants are immune.	Claims dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim and because some claims seek damages barred by immunity.
Judicial immunity (Claims vs. Lund and Shelby)	Judges acted improperly, ignored evidence, and breached duties.	Judges are immune for judicial acts; no allegations of acts outside judicial capacity or absence of jurisdiction.	Claims against judges barred by judicial immunity.
§ 1983 liability for private actors (Bowen, Spencer)	Bowen and Spencer deprived Prestwich of federal rights in the custody proceeding.	They are private actors and Prestwich fails to allege state action or joint participation with state actors.	§ 1983 claims fail for lack of state action.
§ 1985/§ 1986 conspiracy and use of criminal statutes in civil suit	Defendants conspired to obstruct judicial proceedings and committed crimes (treason, extortion, fraud).	No specific allegations of agreement or class-based animus; criminal statutes are not privately enforceable.	§ 1985/1986 claims fail for lack of specific agreement and class-based animus; criminal statutes cannot be enforced in private civil action.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (§ 1915 dismissal analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6))
Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2014) (pleading must be plausible)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991) (pro se filings are liberally construed but must meet rules)
Stein v. Disciplinary Bd. of Supreme Court of N.M., 520 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2008) (judicial immunity principles)
Janny v. Gamez, 8 F.4th 883 (10th Cir. 2021) (state-action requirement for § 1983 against private parties)
Tonkovich v. Kan. Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504 (10th Cir. 1998) (conspiracy claims require specific factual allegations)
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (private parties cannot compel criminal prosecutions)