Willems v. State of Arizona

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 21 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JUNE E. WILLEMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 03-1374
v. (D.C. No. 02-D-1472 (BNB))
STATE OF ARIZONA, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and McCONNELL, Circuit
Judges.
Appellant Willems, pro se, filed a complaint in the District of Colorado
arising from a land transaction in Arizona. In the complaint, she asserted claims
of takings of property and rights, discrimination, prejudice, conspiracy to violate
her civil and constitutional rights, and violations of her civil and constitutional
rights. The State of Arizona filed a Motion to Dismiss. Appellant filed a Motion
for Entry of Default and Default Judgment. The magistrate judge issued a report
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
and recommendation. After consideration of Appellant’s objections, the district
court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied Appellant’s Motion
for Entry of Default and Default Judgment, denied Appellant’s Motion for
Sanctions, granted the State of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the
case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de
novo. Peay v. Bell So. Med. Assistance Plan, 205 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir.
2000). Appellant argues on appeal that the district court incorrectly dismissed the
case for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, none of her arguments have any
basis in the law. We agree with the district court and Appellee that the district
court did not have personal jurisdiction over Arizona because none of the statutes
at issue in this case authorized nationwide service of process upon Arizona.
Additionally, there is no evidence that Arizona had conducted any specific
activity in Colorado or had continuous or systematic contacts with Colorado for
purposes of this suit.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and Appellant’s other submissions,
the district court’s disposition, and the record on appeal. We affirm for
substantially the same reasons as set forth by the district court in its Order of
July 25, 2003, which adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
-2-
AFFIRMED. 1
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
1
Appellant’s Request for Consideration of Documents is GRANTED.
Appellant’s Motions for Reversal of Lower Court Order and Judgment are
DENIED. Appellant’s Motions to Strike Appellee’s Answering Briefs are
DENIED. Appellant’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.
-3-