John Masters v. Cruz Soto, Danny Sanchez, Keith Schultz, Nathan Ruybal, Shelley Quintana Gallegos, and Anne Kelly

Summary

This document is a recommendation by a United States magistrate judge in a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by John Masters against Colorado state officials. The magistrate judge recommends granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss based on untimely service, statute-of-limitations issues, qualified immunity, failure to state a constitutional claim, and the Heck bar. The recommendation addresses claims arising from the plaintiff’s arrest, criminal prosecution, conviction, and alleged inability to obtain trial transcripts for an appeal.

Holdings

1. Service of the summons and Second Amended Complaint on Defendant Soto was untimely because it occurred more than 90 days after the complaint was filed, and a permissive extension was not warranted.
2. Plaintiff's § 1983 claims against Defendant Soto were barred by Colorado's two-year personal-injury statute of limitations.
3. To the extent Plaintiff's claims sought damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, they were barred by Heck v. Humphrey because Plaintiff did not show that the conviction had been invalidated.
4. Defendant Gallegos was entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that her conduct violated a constitutional right.
5. Ruybal, Sanchez, and Schultz were sufficiently served for purposes of the service dispute, but service on Kelly through her chief investigator was insufficient because neither federal nor Colorado law authorized that method on the record presented.
6. Defendant Kelly was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for decisions made in preparing for and conducting Plaintiff's criminal trial, including decisions concerning witness testimony and evidentiary objections.
7. Ruybal, Sanchez, and Schultz were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to identify a specific constitutional or statutory violation and failed to show that any allegedly violated right was clearly established.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff timely and properly served Defendant Soto and the other defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
2. Whether Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Soto were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
3. Whether claims relating to Plaintiff's allegedly unconstitutional conviction were barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
4. Whether Defendant Gallegos was entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation or a clearly established right.
5. Whether Defendant Kelly was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in preparing for and conducting Plaintiff's criminal trial.
6. Whether Defendants Ruybal, Sanchez, and Schultz were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff failed to identify a constitutional violation and failed to show that any right was clearly established.

Disposition

other