Lauer v. Thelin ( 2011 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 22, 2011
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
LARRY ARNO LAUER,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v. No. 11-4101
(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00186-TC)
RUSSELL THELIN; DIANE BAIRD; (D. Utah)
LUIS RODRIGUEZ; UTAH STATE
OFFICE OF REHABILITATION,
Defendants–Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before LUCERO, ANDERSON, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
Larry Arno Lauer appeals the dismissal of his Americans with Disabilities Act
suit. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Lauer filed a complaint against the Utah State Office of Rehabilitation and three of
its employees, Russell Thelin, Diane Baird, and Luis Rodriguez. He alleged that the
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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 and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
defendants “[d]iscriminated against [him] for being disabled,” but did not explain the
nature of the alleged discrimination, or how the defendants were involved. The district
court dismissed Lauer’s complaint without prejudice, permitting him an opportunity to
submit an amended complaint. Rather than submitting an amended complaint, Lauer
filed a motion to amend and for injunctive relief along with a supporting brief. Like the
original complaint, these filings lacked any factual allegations relating to the claimed
discrimination. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion to amend and
closed the case. Lauer timely appealed the dismissal of his action.
“This court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), applying the same legal standard applicable in the district
court.” Teigen v. Renfrow, 511 F.3d 1072, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007). Although a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim is “rarely granted,” Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Horman
Family Trust, 960 F.2d 917, 920 (10th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted), “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations and
citations omitted). A complaint that “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual
enhancement” fails to meet this standard. Id. (quotation omitted).
Lauer’s complaint is one of the rare bare-bones filings that is properly subject to
12(b)(6) dismissal. It wholly fails to identify any acts committed by the defendants that
might qualify as discrimination. The same is true of Lauer’s other filings. Even liberally
construing Lauer’s subsequent pro se submittals as a form of amended complaint, see
-2-
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), they do not allege any facts that
might give rise to a claim for relief. After reviewing all of the documents Lauer filed in
the district court, we cannot determine how Lauer believes the defendants have wronged
him.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-