Evans v. Ortiz ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Appellate Case: 21-2138     Document: 010110652120       Date Filed: 03/03/2022    Page: 1
    FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 3, 2022
    _________________________________
    Christopher M. Wolpert
    Clerk of Court
    FORREST EVANS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                                          No. 21-2138
    (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00833-KWR-CG)
    ALICIA ORTIZ; MARTA FLORES,                                  (D. N.M.)
    Public Service Representative;
    MARGARET WILLIAMS; DAVID
    ANCHONDO, Owner of Anchondos MVD
    Services; IRENE DE LA CRUZ, Manager,
    Hobbs NM MVD; DANETTE BARELA;
    GARASIMOS REZATOS, MVD
    Department, Deputy Director; HTET
    GONZALES, MVD, Department, Deputy
    Director; MARK WILLIAMS; WILLIAM
    DURAN; ANGEL MARTINEZ, Bureau
    Chief; CITY OF HOBBS, NM,
    Municipality; CITY OF CARLSBAD,
    NEW MEXICO; CITY OF LOVINGTON,
    NM; MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM,
    Governor of New Mexico; SUSANNA
    MARTINEZ, Former Governor of New
    Mexico; STEPHANIE SCHARDIN
    CLARK, Cabinet Secretary; TOBY
    SPEARS, CPA Finance Director, all in
    their official capacities,
    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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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. It may be cited, however, for
    its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    Appellate Case: 21-2138    Document: 010110652120        Date Filed: 03/03/2022      Page: 2
    Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
    _________________________________
    Forrest Evans, who is pro se,1 sued eighteen defendants under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , alleging equal protection and due process violations while “engaged in the
    MVD business from 2012 [through] June 2019.” R. Vol. 1 at 23. Evans also asserted
    state-law claims, such as defamation. The district court dismissed all his § 1983
    claims sua sponte, either as time-barred or for failure to state a claim. The court then
    declined supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Evans now appeals the
    dismissal of his claims. Exercising jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , we affirm.
    We review sua sponte dismissals of complaints de novo and construe well-
    pleaded facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Smith v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr.,
    
    23 F.3d 339
    , 340 (10th Cir. 1994). We review denials of supplemental jurisdiction for
    abuse of discretion. Nielander v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 
    582 F.3d 1155
    , 1172 (10th
    Cir. 2009).
    Evans doesn’t attack the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of
    Dismissal (“Memorandum Opinion”), which explained why his federal claims failed.
    Evans seems to instead argue that, based on the one-page Rule 58 Judgment, the
    **
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.
    1
    Since Evans is a pro se litigant, we liberally construe his filings, Erickson v.
    Pardus, 
    551 U.S. 89
    , 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v. Bellmon, 
    935 F.2d 1106
    , 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
    2
    Appellate Case: 21-2138    Document: 010110652120        Date Filed: 03/03/2022   Page: 3
    district court dismissed his complaint without reviewing its merits. See Op. Br. at 10
    (“The District Court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law as to the merits
    of my complaint.”); see also Op. Br. at 13 (“The District court arbitrarily without any
    review summarily dismissed my case under Rule 58[.]”). Yet the Rule 58 Judgment
    states that it was entered based on the Memorandum Opinion. And contrary to
    Evans’s argument, the Memorandum Opinion explains—on a defendant-by-defendant
    basis, with ample citations to his complaint and binding caselaw—why his federal
    claims were dismissed. We agree with the district court’s well-reasoned decision.
    And because none of Evans’s federal claims survived, the district court acted within
    its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
    The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
    Entered for the Court
    Gregory A. Phillips
    Circuit Judge
    3