Torres v. Garner

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 14, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ARTURO TORRES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-2065
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00977-MCA-GBW)
TIMOTHY GARNER, Deputy District (D.N.M.)
Attorney; GEORGE ZSOKA, Deputy
District Attorney; STATE OF NEW
MEXICO,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Arturo Torres, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se,1 appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against individual defendants
and the State of New Mexico. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
affirm.
*
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. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
1
We construe Torres’ pro se filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
I
Torres sued two New Mexico prosecutors and the State of New Mexico for
allegedly violating his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Before
the district court, he argued that prosecutors improperly enhanced his sentence based
on prior violent felonies that he did not commit. The district court dismissed his
claims sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Specifically, the district court
dismissed the claim against the individual defendants because Torres failed to allege
that their actions were taken outside the scope of initiating a prosecution and
presenting the state’s case. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)
(holding that “in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the
prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983”). The claim
against New Mexico was dismissed because § 1983 creates no remedy against a state.
See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997). Torres timely
appealed.
II
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint under § 1915 for
failure to state a claim. Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d 1222, 1224 (10th Cir. 2002).
On appeal, Torres claims that the prosecutors took action “outside the state[’]s
prosecution of the criminal proceedings” against him because the prosecutors
violated state law. But aside from a bald reference to a New Mexico sentencing
statute, N.M. Stat. § 31-18-15, and a claim that the state failed to provide him notice
that it intended to increase his sentence, he fails to offer any substantive argument to
-2-
support this assertion. He does not allege with specificity how the prosecutors were
involved in his allegedly illegal sentencing, how the New Mexico sentencing statute
was violated, or why such a violation would permit liability under § 1983. The
prosecutors are accordingly immune from suit. See Imbler, 424 U.S. 430-31.
Even construing his pro se arguments liberally, Torres mounts no reasoned
challenge to the district court’s holding that § 1983 creates no remedy against the
state of New Mexico. See Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 69.
III
Because Torres fails to state a claim, we AFFIRM. The district court’s
dismissal of the underlying complaint counts as a strike against Torres under
§ 1915(g) and our decision to affirm counts as an additional strike. See Childs v.
Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1266 (10th Cir. 2013). We remind Torres that if he accrues
three strikes, he may no longer proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action filed in
federal court unless he is in imminent danger of physical injury. § 1915(g).
In order to succeed on his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
Torres must “show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the
existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the
issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.
1991). Because Torres does not show a reasoned nonfrivolous argument on the law
or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, his motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis is DENIED, and we direct him to make full payment of the appellate
-3-
filing fee immediately.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-4-