
    Vernell MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angel MEDINA, Warden, et al [sic]; Colorado Attorney General; Appellate Judge Metzger; Appellate Judge Ney; Appellate Judge Ruland; District Ct. Judge L.A. Manzanares; District Ct. Judge Anne M. Mansfield; District Ct. Judge William D. Robbins, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 11-1557.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 21, 2012.
    Vernell Mitchell, Limón, CO, pro se.
    Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

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, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because they seek to “imply the invalidity of his conviction,” id. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 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. 
      
       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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
     