Barton v. City and County of Denver, 102407 FED10, 06-1536
|Party Name:||LILLIAN BARTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; R. BLEA, Officer, Badge No. 99006; N. SAGAN, Officer, Badge No. 96-021; JOSH VASCONCELLOS, Defendants-Appellees, and JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Mayor, in his official capacity; WELLINGTON WEBB, as former Mayor, in his official capacity; GERALD R. WHITMAN, Chief of Police, City and County of|
|Case Date:||October 24, 2007|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
(D.C. Nos. 03-cv-2633-PSF-PAC & 04-cv-319-PSF-PAC) (D. Colo.)
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]
Harris L Hartz, Circuit Judge.
Lillian Barton was arrested by Denver, Colorado, police officers Richard Blea, Nicholas Sagan, and Joshua Vasconcellos (the "officers") for interfering with police authority. When the charge was later dismissed by the state court, she initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers, the City and County of Denver (the "City"), and several city officials. A number of her claims were dismissed on summary judgment, and a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers on those that remained. Ms. Barton appeals pro se. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
We paraphrase Ms. Barton's seven appellate contentions as follows: (1) the defendants were bound by claim and issue preclusion from litigating whether they had probable cause to arrest her because the criminal charge had been dismissed for lack of probable cause; (2) the Double Jeopardy Clause barred relitigation of the issues resolved in her criminal case; (3) she was denied due process when her trial lawyer refused to question a witness's identity; (4) the district court erred in allowing her to be cross-examined with her uncorrected deposition testimony; (5) the district court deviated from its proper procedure in considering the magistrate judge's report and recommendation; (6) the district court abused its discretion by forcing her to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for filing excessive pro se motions; and (7) the district court exceeded its jurisdiction by relitigating the earlier criminal case....
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP