Smith v. State of New Mexico , 94 F. App'x 780 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    APR 9 2004
    TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    RICHARD SMITH,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,                   No. 03-2292
    v.                                         (D. New Mexico)
    STATE OF NEW MEXICO;                        (D.C. No. CIV-03-139-MCA/RLP)
    WILLIAM C. BIRDSALL, Eleventh
    Judicial District Court, personally and
    in his official capacity as a New
    Mexico District Court Judge; and
    SANDRA PRICE, personally and in
    her official capacity as a New Mexico
    Chief Deputy District Attorney,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT         *
    Before EBEL , MURPHY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
    After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has
    determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    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.
    Proceeding pro se, Richard Smith appeals the district court’s   sua sponte
    dismissal of the civil rights complaint he brought pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    .
    Smith filed the action against Sandra Price, the New Mexico chief deputy district
    attorney; the Honorable William C. Birdsall, a New Mexico State District Court
    judge; and the State of New Mexico. Smith alleged that defendants’ actions,
    taken in both their individual and official capacities, violated his Fourth
    Amendment rights and his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
    The district court first concluded that Price and Birdsall were entitled to
    absolute immunity as to any claims asserted against them in their individual
    capacities. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons , 
    509 U.S. 259
    , 273 (1993);     Wiggins v. N.M.
    State Supreme Court Clerk , 
    664 F.2d 812
    , 815 (10th Cir. 1981). Further, the
    claims asserted against the State of New Mexico and against Price and Birdsall
    while acting in their official capacities failed because “neither a State nor its
    officials, acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’” against whom a claim
    for damages can be brought pursuant to § 1983.     Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
    Police , 
    491 U.S. 58
    , 71 (1989). Finally, the court concluded that any other claims
    for damages Smith asserted against the State of New Mexico were barred by the
    -2-
    State’s sovereign immunity from suit. Accordingly, the district court dismissed
    Smith’s complaint with prejudice.
    Smith first challenges the dismissal of the complaint on the merits.    1
    Because the district court’s order relied on both § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6),
    we will apply the Rule 12(b)(6)      de novo standard of review in this case.   See
    Perkins v. Kansas Dept. of Corr      ., 
    165 F.3d 803
    , 806 (10th Cir. 1999). We have
    reviewed the briefs and the applicable law and have found no reversible error in
    the district court’s analysis. Accordingly, we      affirm the dismissal of Smith’s
    complaint.
    Smith also argues that the district court should not have dismissed the
    complaint with prejudice without first giving him notice. This court, however,
    has held that a district court may    sua sponte dismiss a pro se complaint under
    Rule 12(b)(6) “when it is ‘patently obvious’ that the plaintiff could not prevail on
    the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would
    be futile.”   Hall v. Bellmon , 
    935 F.2d 1106
    , 1109 (10th Cir. 1991) (citation
    omitted). It is clear from our review of the record that Smith cannot prevail on
    1
    Smith’s motion to amend his opening brief, as corrected by the errata
    sheet, is granted.
    -3-
    the facts alleged in his complaint and allowing him the opportunity to amend the
    complaint would be futile. Consequently, the district court did not err when it
    dismissed Smith’s complaint   sua sponte .
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Michael R. Murphy
    Circuit Judge
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2292

Citation Numbers: 94 F. App'x 780

Judges: Ebel, McCONNELL, Murphy

Filed Date: 4/9/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023