Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hutson v. State

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 8, 2016

ROCKY-LEE HUTSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO, GOVERNOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER, COLORADO STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL CYNTHIA H. COFFMAN, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE WAYNE W. WILLIAMS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES All of the Officers and Assistants, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION All licensed bar attorneys and assistants, COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION All licensed bar attorney and assistants, MESA COUNTY COURT All of the Judges and their assistants, MESA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE All of the officers and assistants, MESA COUNTY, MESA COUNTY SHERIFF MATT LEWIS, MESA COUNTY JAIL All deputies in the Sheriff’s Department, CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION, GRAND JUNCTION POLICE DEPARTMENT The Chief of Police and everyone under him down to the meter maid, EAGLE COUNTY, EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFF JAMES VAN BEEK, EAGLE COUNTY JAIL All deputies in the Sheriff’s Department, CITY OF EAGLE, EAGLE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE All of the officers and assistants, EAGLE COUNTY COURTS All of the Judges and their Assistants, CITY OF GOLDEN, JEFFERSON COUNTY, JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF JEFF SHRADER, JEFFERSON COUNTY JAIL All deputies in the Sheriff’s Department, PUEBLO COUNTY, PUEBLO COUNTY SHERIFF KIRK M. TAYLOR, PUEBLO COUNTY JAIL All deputies in the Sheriff’s Department, PUEBLO COUNTY COURT All of the Judges and their assistants, CITY OF PUEBLO, and PUEBLO COUTNY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE All of the officers and assistants, Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, SENIOR JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff Rocky-Lee: Hutson filed on the Court-approved form a Complaint (ECF No. 7) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming thirty defendants and asserting thirty claims for relief.

On December 16, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher reviewed the Complaint and determined that it was deficient because (1) it did not comply with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) many of the Defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; (3) some of the Defendants were private entities and there were no allegations of state action; (4) some of the Defendants were entitled to absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity; (5) Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that each named Defendant personally participated in a deprivation of his constitutional rights; and (6) Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting a § 1983 claim for false arrest and imprisonment or malicious prosecution. (See ECF No. 8). Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gallagher directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that complied with the directives of the December 16 Order. (Id.). On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) naming the same thirty defendants and asserting the same thirty claims for relief.

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Subsection (e)(2)(B) of § 1915 requires a court to dismiss sua sponte an action at any time if the action is frivolous, malicious, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A legally frivolous claim is one in which the plaintiff asserts the violation of a legal interest that clearly does not exist or asserts facts that do not support an arguable claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

The Court construes the Amended Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not be the pro se litigant's advocate. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons discussed below, this action will be dismissed.

I. The Amended Complaint

The Amended Complaint does nothing to clarify the allegations of the initial Complaint and names the same thirty Defendants and re-asserts the same thirty claims for relief. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:

I was arrested on February 19, 2015 by Grand Junction Police Department, on a Failure to Appear Warrant.
When I asked to see the Warrant, I was told.
‘We don’t have to show you anything’, When I ask by what authority are you arresting me? The Police Officer pointed at his Badge and pistol and said ‘This Badge and Gun are my Authority’.
When I demanded to see the Judge, after we arrived at the County Jail.
The Police Officers and the Sheriff Deputies said, ‘You will see the Judge when he/she is ready and not before’.
Everything that was said and done to me from February 19, 2015 to March 09, 2015 is in clear violation of any and all State and Federal Acts, Codes, Laws, Ordinances, Rules and Statutes. From the time of my arrest my Civil Rights have been violated by ALL of these entities, agents and individuals. Now in order for Justice to occur there has to be an injured party, proof of injury and someone or something that did the injury. I am the injured party and they did the crime. With their own records they prove my claim and I want them to pay for their wrongdoings.

(ECF No. 10, at 3).

In support of his claims, Plaintiff further alleges:

1. When I did get in front of the Judges in my cases, the Deputies with the different Sheriff’s Departments told me not to speak until I was told to.
2. The District Attorneys [sic] Officers told me to Plead Guilty on the charges and get time served plus a fine or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.