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.

Rudolph v. Hanson

United States District Court, D. Utah

October 2, 2017

HENRY LEE RUDOLPH, Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY HANSON et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          CLARK WADDOUPS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Amended Complaint here alleges civil-rights violations regarding Plaintiff's prosecution and conviction by the State of Utah for a crime occurring on August 1, 1994. The procedural facts are best described by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Rudolph, 970 P.2d 1221 (Utah 1998):

The State charged Rudolph with aggravated burglary, aggravated sexual assault, and violation of a protective order. He appeared pro se with the assistance of standby counsel. Following a jury trial in late 1994, he was convicted of and sentenced on the charges of aggravated burglary and violation of a protective order, but was acquitted on the charge of aggravated sexual assault.
Rudolph appealed his convictions to this court. Because significant portions of the trial transcript were incomplete due to technical problems with the court reporter's machinery, we summarily reversed his convictions and remanded his case to the trial court for a new trial on the aggravated burglary and violation of a protective order charges. On remand, the trial judge, Judge Timothy R. Hanson, recused himself, and the case was reassigned to Judge Pat B. Brian.
In February 1996, Rudolph's new trial began, and he again appeared pro se. However, during the redirect examination of the State's first witness, the court granted Rudolph's motion for a mistrial. He also moved to recuse Judge Brian from further proceedings in the case. Although Judge Brian apparently granted this motion, he continued to preside over Rudolph's third trial.
At the third jury trial, Rudolph was represented by court-appointed counsel. He was again convicted of aggravated burglary and violation of a protective order and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms as prescribed by statute. Rudolph now appeals from these convictions.

Id. at 1223-1224.

         Plaintiff names these defendants: Timothy Hanson (judge at one of Plaintiff's criminal trials); Karen Stam (Plaintiff's public defender); Charles Behrens, Barbara Byrne, and Katherine Bernards Goodman (prosecutors); Erin Riley (Assistant Attorney General representing State in Plaintiff's state post-conviction proceeding); Michael Sibbett, Keith Hamilton, Jesse Gallegos, and Curtis Garner (Utah Board of Pardons and Parole (BOP) members).[1] Service of the Amended Complaint on Hanson, Byrne, Sibbett, and Hamilton remains unexecuted. Pending motions to dismiss have been filed by Stam, Behrens and Bernard Goodman (together), Riley, Gallegos, and Garner.

         UNSERVED DEFENDANTS

         The Court ordered service on all defendants in this case; however, despite extra efforts, Hanson, Byrne, Sibbett, and Hamilton remain unserved. Even so, the Court exercises its screening authority to dismiss these defendants.

         A. Standard of Review

         This Court shall dismiss any claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis if they are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2017). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend." Perkins v. Kan. Dep't of Corrs., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). When reviewing a complaint's sufficiency complaint the Court "presumes all of plaintiff's factual allegations are true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1109 (10th Cir. 1991).

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se the Court must construe his pleadings "liberally" and hold them "to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. at 1110. However, "[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff's complaint does not relieve [him] of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based." Id. While Plaintiff need not describe every fact in specific detail, "conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim on which relief can be based." Id.

         B. ...


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.