Schupper v. Cafasso, 708 F. App'x 943

Background

Pro se plaintiff Sanford Schupper sued Colorado prosecutors, investigators, and probation officers in 2010 asserting state and federal claims arising from his state criminal prosecution and convictions.
The district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation dismissing all state-law claims with prejudice for failure to comply with the Colorado Governmental Immunities Act, dismissing official-capacity federal monetary claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds, and abstaining under Younger as to certain federal individual-capacity claims; federal equitable claims were dismissed without prejudice and the case was administratively closed.
Schupper claimed he did not receive the recommendation, sought leave to file a late motion for reconsideration, numerous extensions, and repeated appointment of counsel; he never filed the requested reconsideration or timely, specific objections to later dismissal recommendations.
Magistrate and district judges denied appointment of counsel after considering Schupper’s medical letters and his litigation history, concluding his filings showed sufficient capability and that the claims lacked sufficient merit or complexity to warrant counsel.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of remaining individual-capacity § 1983 claims largely on prosecutorial immunity and failure to plead personal participation; the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the case.
On appeal, Schupper argued his disability excused his failure to object and that the court erred by denying appointed counsel; the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion and enforced the firm waiver rule, affirming the dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to file timely, specific objections to magistrate recommendations waives appellate review	Schupper: disability prevented timely, specific objections; interests of justice should excuse waiver	Defendants: Schupper received notices and extensions; no timely specific objections were filed	Held: Waiver enforced under the firm waiver rule; exceptions not met
Whether district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of counsel	Schupper: medical condition prevented self-representation; court should appoint counsel	Defendants: case lacked sufficient merit/complexity and plaintiff demonstrated litigation capability	Held: No abuse of discretion; court properly considered relevant factors
Whether remaining § 1983 claims survived dismissal	Schupper: claims presumed viable	Defendants: prosecutorial immunity and failure to plead personal participation warranted dismissal	Held: Dismissal affirmed (absolute prosecutorial immunity for most claims; pleading deficiencies otherwise)
Whether interests of justice warranted review despite waiver	Schupper: importance of issues and disability justify excusing waiver	Defendants: issues not sufficiently important; explanations lacked plausibility	Held: Interests-of-justice exception not applicable; appellate review waived

Key Cases Cited

Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925 (10th Cir. 2008) (pro se filings entitled to liberal construction)
Wirsching v. Colorado, 360 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2004) (firm waiver rule for failure to object to magistrate judge recommendations)
United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1996) (objections to magistrate recommendations must be timely and specific)
Wardell v. Duncan, 470 F.3d 954 (10th Cir. 2006) (exceptions to firm waiver rule described)
Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1995) (standard of review and factors for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
Farmer v. Banco Popular, 791 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard)
Morales–Fernandez v. INS, 418 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir. 2005) (factors for considering interests-of-justice exception)
Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error argument must be raised to district court)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings)