Bangerter v. Roach

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 13, 2012
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RENEE BANGERTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 11-4111
(D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00294-DS)
CRISTIE ROACH, and DOES 1-50, (D. Utah)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Renee Bangerter appeals from a district court order that dismissed her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 case against Cristie Roach. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.
B ACKGROUND
In March 2011, Bangerter sued Roach, “an employee of the [Utah] Office
of Guardian Ad Litem,” for violating her due-process rights. Aplt. App. at 4.
*
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)(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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
Bangerter claimed that “Roach used her position at the Office of Guardian
Ad Litem” to become the “guardian ad litem for Plaintiff’s three minor children”
despite having a conflict of interest. Aplt. App. at 6. Once appointed, Roach
“abandon[ed] her role of representing the best interest of the children in order to
show favor to a private attorney and her client.” Id. at 8. Further, Roach
purportedly “ignored reports of neglect of one of the minor children.” Id. at 6.
The district court dismissed Bangerter’s complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that Roach, as a guardian ad litem, was not a
state actor liable under § 1983. It also found Bangerter’s allegations about
Roach’s pre-appointment conduct to be unsupported and conclusory. Finally, the
court rejected Bangerter’s summary request for leave to amend.
D ISCUSSION
We review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, accepting as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and viewing them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098
(10th Cir. 2009). “To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (quotation
omitted). In other words, the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level,” and a complaint that merely offers
-2-
“labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action,” is insufficient. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
As the district court noted, guardians ad litem are not state actors for
purposes of § 1983 because they give their “undivided loyalty to the minor, not
the state.” Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 155 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
To circumvent this principle, Bangerter argues that her “complaint deals with
[Roach’s] actions before her appointment as guardian ad litem.” Aplt. Br. at 18.
But that characterization of the complaint is not accurate. Most of the complaint
deals with post-appointment conduct. And while there is an allegation targeting
pre-appointment conduct, it is so vague and conclusory that it fails to raise a right
to relief. Specifically, Roach allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest,
and “maneuver[ed] and manipulat[ed] her way to be appointed . . . through a
series of unlawful acts and assist a private attorney [sic].” Aplt. App. at 6. We
are left to speculate as to how this conduct—which apparently occurred when she
was an “employee of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem,” id. at 4—necessarily
constitutes state action, and if it does, how it violated Bangerter’s due-process
rights. We conclude that Bangerter’s complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (stating that a “pleading must contain something
-3-
more than a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion of a legally
cognizable right of action” (quotation and alterations omitted)). 1
Bangerter argues that, in any event, the nature of the district court’s
dismissal—with prejudice—was inappropriate. She contends that her complaint
advanced state and common-law claims, and that pleading deficiencies could have
been cured by amendment.
We review a district court’s decision to dismiss with prejudice for abuse of
discretion. U.S. ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 282 F.3d 787, 809
(10th Cir. 2002). “A dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where a complaint
fails to state a claim . . . and granting leave to amend would be futile.” Brereton
v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006).
In seeking leave to amend, Bangerter never filed a formal motion in the
district court. Rather, in her opposition to Roach’s motion to dismiss, she merely
requested that “at a minimum Plaintiff be allowed leave to amend any possible
perceived pleading failures.” Aplt. App. at 25. Such cursory requests for leave to
amend are insufficient. See Garman v. Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 630 F.3d
977, 986 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 95 (2011). Further, leave to
amend would have been futile, given that the lawsuit targeted a defendant whose
conduct as a guardian ad litem is generally beyond the scope of § 1983 liability.
1
To the extent that Bangerter’s complaint named “John and Jane Does 1-50”
as defendants, there are no allegations that implicate a claim for relief against
them.
-4-
Finally, insofar as Bangerter asserts that she had pleaded facts supporting state
and common-law claims, the complaint itself asserts that “all current claims deal
with constitutional violations [sic] 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Aplt. App. at 5.
We determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making
the dismissal with prejudice.
C ONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-