Ruiz v. Lavery, 21-8014

In 2018 Ruiz pleaded guilty under Wyoming law to aggravated assault and battery; state court suspended a 7–10 year sentence and imposed five years’ probation, which was later revoked and the prison term imposed.
In 2021 Ruiz filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in federal court naming Judge Richard Lavery (who revoked probation) and public defender D. Richard Helson, alleging constitutional violations during the revocation proceedings and seeking dismissal of the underlying charge.
Ruiz initially failed to pay the filing fee or file an IFP motion; the district court screened and dismissed his original complaint for failure to state a claim and set conditions for any amended complaint.
Ruiz then filed an Amended Complaint and an IFP motion late; the district court excused the tardiness, granted IFP, but dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim.
The district court held Judge Lavery is protected by absolute judicial immunity; Helson (a public defender) did not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes; challenges to the conviction must be brought in habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and damages for an unlawful conviction require the conviction to have been overturned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Judge Lavery is liable under § 1983 for actions during the revocation	Lavery violated Ruiz’s constitutional rights by failing to inquire into self-defense/discriminating	Judicial acts in revocation proceeding are protected; no allegation of action in clear absence of jurisdiction	Judge Lavery is entitled to absolute judicial immunity; claim dismissed
Whether Helson (public defender) acted under color of state law for § 1983	Helson provided inadequate representation/discovery, violating Ruiz’s rights	As a public defender, Helson’s conduct was not under color of state law for § 1983	Helson did not act under color of state law; § 1983 claim fails
Whether § 1983 can be used to attack the validity of the conviction/sentence	Ruiz seeks relief that would effectively invalidate the conviction/sentence	Challenges to conviction/sentence must proceed by habeas (§ 2254)	Claims that attack conviction/sentence must be brought in habeas; § 1983 improper
Whether Ruiz may recover damages for an allegedly unlawful conviction	Seeks monetary relief for unconstitutional conviction/revocation	Under Heck, damages barred unless conviction overturned	Damages barred unless conviction has been invalidated; Ruiz has not alleged that

Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 1994) (judicial immunity protects judges unless acting in clear absence of jurisdiction)
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defenders ordinarily do not act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (civil damages for unconstitutional conviction are barred unless conviction has been invalidated)
Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissals)
Mayfield v. Bethards, 826 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2016) (pleading-stage treatment of attached materials and factual allegations)