Mitchell v. Medina

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 21, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
VERNELL MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANGEL MEDINA, Warden, et al [sic];
COLORADO ATTORNEY
No. 11-1557
GENERAL; APPELLATE JUDGE
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-01662-LTB)
METZGER; APPELLATE JUDGE
(D. Colo.)
NEY; APPELLATE JUDGE
RULAND; DISTRICT CT. JUDGE
L.A. MANZANARES; DISTRICT CT.
JUDGE ANNE M. MANSFIELD;
DISTRICT CT. JUDGE WILLIAM D.
ROBBINS,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
In 1989 Vernell Mitchell was convicted on two counts of first degree
murder. In this pro se action, he contends the Colorado Court of Appeals issued
an opinion in his state post-conviction proceedings in error based on an inaccurate
record. He seeks a new trial and other injunctive relief.
Construing Mr. Mitchell’s complaint as stating claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the district court proceeded to dismiss his claims on the merits.
The district court explained that the state judges named as defendants are immune
from suit because Mr. Mitchell challenges their official actions. The court further
explained that Mr. Mitchell’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994), because they seek to “imply the invalidity of his conviction,” id. at
487, by demanding (among other things) a new trial.
Reviewing Mr. Mitchell’s pro se papers with the liberality they are due, we
are unable to discern any error in the district court’s thorough opinion.
Accordingly, its judgment is affirmed, the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied, and Mr. Mitchell is ordered to pay immediately the unpaid
balance of his appellate filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
-2-