Edwards v. Stringer ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 12 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MARGARET D. EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 03-2207
(D.C. No. 02-1443 BB/RHS)
N. MARTIN STRINGER; (D. N.M.)
JEFFERSON I. RUST; MCKINNEY &
STRINGER, an Oklahoma
corporation; RON LUCAS; AMY
GRAY; JAMES SCARBOROUGH;
GINA FISHER; CHERYL
MUMFORD; STAGE STORES, INC.,
a Texas corporation; JOHN/JANE
DOES 1-12,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Margaret Edwards, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s
*
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judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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. 36.3.
dismissal of her civil rights claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.
Edwards was interviewed and subsequently hired by Stage Stores, Inc., a
private employer, for a supervisory position at the Bealls Department Store.
Upon her arrival for work, she was asked to fill out a W-4 form. Edwards
initially refused to disclose her social security number, claiming that the social
security system was voluntary and that she did not wish to participate. When
Edwards was informed that she could not work without a social security number,
she agreed to disclose the number but refused to sign the W-4. Edwards was
terminated for refusal to sign the W-4, and this suit resulted. Edwards sued Stage
Stores, its employees, and the individual defendants’ lawyers for alleged civil
rights violations.
The district court considered Edwards’ complaint and determined that her
claims failed for two reasons: (1) none of the parties named in the complaint
were government actors subject to liability for deprivation of civil rights; and (2)
Stage Stores, a private employer bound by law to withhold and pay social security
to the Internal Revenue Service, did not need Edwards’ permission to require her
to submit to withholding. Thus concluding that Edwards’ claims lacked merit, the
district court dismissed.
On appeal, Edwards reiterates her assertions of numerous civil rights
-2-
violations. Because Edwards is proceeding pro se, we construe her complaint
liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). If we can
reasonably read the complaint “to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, [we] should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal
authority, [her] confusion of various legal theories . . . or [her] unfamiliarity with
pleading requirements.” Id. However, it is not our role to act as an advocate for
a pro se litigant. Id. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, accepting
all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in
the light most favorable to Edwards. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194,
1201 (10th Cir. 2003).
Edwards claims that participation in social security is voluntary, and
therefore that employers cannot require their employees to submit to social
security withholdings. Even construing Edwards’ complaint liberally, her
concerns with identity theft do not sound as civil rights violations. First, as the
district court made clear, only state actors may be charged with depriving
Edwards of her civil rights. See, e.g., Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S.
922, 937 (1982); Carey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 823 F.2d 1402, 1404 (10th
Cir. 1987). Edwards does not dispute that none of the defendants named in her
initial complaint are government actors. Thus, Edwards’ civil rights claims must
fail.
-3-
Moreover, Stage Stores is not only authorized, but also legally bound to
withhold and pay federal income taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. See
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (upholding the constitutionality
and uniform application of the Social Security Act, which requires employers to
withhold social security taxes from employees’ wages, even when such
withholding conflicts with an employer’s or employee’s religious or other
beliefs); Payne v. Dixie Elec. Co., 330 S.E.2d 749, 750 (Ga. App. 1985) (“an
employer is not only authorized but required to withhold federal income taxes
from his employees’ pay”); Wilhelm v. United States, 84-1 USTC 1700, *3 (E.D.
Tex. 1983) (same). Thus, Stage Stores’ compliance with its legal obligation to
withhold taxes from its employees is not a violation of Edwards’ civil rights.
Because Edwards has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, we AFFIRM.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-