Storer v. County of Santa Fe ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
APR 28 1998
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CYNTHIA STORER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2198
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1582-JC)
COUNTY OF SANTA FE; SANTA FE (D. N.M.)
SOLAR HOMES; KEITH
MACDUFFEE; HOLLY HART,
Attorney; ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Consumer Protection Division; TINI
GARCIA; RISK MANAGEMENT OF
C.I.D.; ORLANDO MARTINEZ;
ED’S FLOOR; BRUCE BEERS-
GREEN; JOHN STEVER; KORTZ,
Journeyman; KISSENGER,
Journeyman; POND GENALD,
Appraiser; AMREP; ECIA;
ELDORADO SUBDIVISION; THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT;
INTERSTATE LENDING
CORPORATION; FIRST
INTERSTATE MORTGAGE;
C. FRIEDMAN,
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
(continued...)
Before TACHA, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
The district court, after finding plaintiff’s complaint incomprehensible,
granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
We uphold a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when it
appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the
claims that would entitle [her] to relief, accepting the well-pleaded
allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff.
Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.) (quotation omitted),
cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 55 (1997). After our de novo review of the briefs,
pleadings, and record in this case, we agree with the district court that plaintiff’s
claims are incomprehensible and further conclude that this appeal is frivolous.
*
(...continued)
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
1
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-