Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DEC 10 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 99-1092
(D.C. No. 96-D-1831)
(D. Colo.)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
violated her civil rights while acting in their official capacities and under color
of state law. She requests monetary damages of $100,000 per defendant in the
complaint, and in March 1997 also filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The
magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned traveled to CMHIP and held an
evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction in July 1997.
See Appellees App. Vol. I at 43. After the hearing, he recommended denial of
-2-
the motion for injunction, and the district court adopted this recommendation.
See id. at 47.
Defendants then filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment
together with affidavits and medical records, and plaintiff submitted various
affidavits and other documents she alleged support her claims. After considering
the record and the July 1997 hearing testimony, the magistrate judge
recommended granting either the motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment
on plaintiffs claims on several bases:
her claim that her constitutional rights were violated as to involuntary medication,
see id. at 450-51; (4) no evidence supported plaintiffs claim that the diet
prescribed for her high triglyceride levels for a short period of time violated her
constitutional rights,
Although the magistrate judge did not number his proposed findings, we do
so for ease of reference, and it is these numbers that are referred to in the rest of
this order and judgment.
-3-
evidence supported plaintiffs claim that she was denied her right to practice her
religion, she has no constitutional right to evangelize at the facility, and her
methods of loudly proselytizing to others confined at the facility were properly
curtailed under the circumstances,
that she was the victim of retaliation as a result of filing this lawsuit or her many
grievances, see id. ; and (10) damage claims against state employees sued in their
official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment,
carefully reviewing the recommendations and the record, the district court
adopted the findings and recommendations and granted the motion for summary
judgment. See id. Vol. I at 4-5.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the district courts judgment was biased and
prejudicial because she is a
claims that the court improperly refused to appoint legal counsel, failed to
properly address motions, and allowed evidence to be removed from the court
clerk that proved all her allegations of abuse. She requests review of the full
record of proceedings, petitions, and evidence, and reversal of the district court.
-4-
v. Campbell , 962 F.2d 1517, 1521 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). There is no
genuine issue of fact [w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a
rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.
a pillow slip that she submitted to the district court, has been removed from the
district court record. The pillow slip is in the record as Exhibit D to Document
89. There is also nothing to support her claims that the district court was biased
or prejudiced against her because she is
Further, the court properly denied her request for appointment of legal counsel.
The district court was able to determine whether plaintiffs claim had merit and
whether the issues raised were unusually complex, and did not abuse its discretion
by deciding that further assistance was not needed.
159, 167 n.14 (1985), and conclude that defendants were sued only in their
official capacities. We hold that the district court correctly determined that
plaintiffs claims for monetary damages against
capacities may not be entertained in federal court, and all of plaintiffs claims
were therefore properly dismissed.
(1974) (stating that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal court by
private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds
in the state treasury).
Plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of
costs or fees is granted. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED .
-7-