Chavez v. Propp ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 9 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BENJAMIN J. CHAVEZ and VIOLA F.
CHAVEZ, d/b/a SANTA FE
SOUTHWEST JEWELRY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 97-2309
v.
(D.C. No. CIV-96-1656-SC)
(District of New Mexico)
BENNETT PROPP, CARMELITA
HOUTMAN, and DEBI McNEIL,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRORBY, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and
WEST,** Senior District Judge.
Benjamin J. Chavez and Viola F. Chavez, doing business as Santa Fe Southwest
Jewelry (“Chavezes”), street vendors in Santa Fe, New Mexico filed a civil rights action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico against Bennett Propp,
Carmelita Houtman and Debi McNeil, also street vendors in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
Honorable Lee R. West, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for
**
the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
After filing an answer, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss
and dismissed the “case in its entirety.” Chavezes appeal. We affirm.
Since this dismissal is based primarily on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Chavezes’
complaint must be analyzed in some detail. In their complaint, the Chavezes described
themselves as jewelry makers who sell their wares on the Santa Fe Plaza under a license
issued by the City of Santa Fe. They described the defendants as craft vendors who also
sell their wares on the Santa Fe Plaza, and alleged that the defendants “have acted and
conspired to act individually and together under the color of State law.” The Chavezes
asserted federal jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 and
2000(a) and “the constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of New Mexico
and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.”1 The Chavezes then alleged that the Santa Fe Plaza is
a place of public accommodation in downtown Santa Fe which has historically and
traditionally been a place for sale of contemporary arts and crafts. They went on to state
that the vending of crafts in the Plaza is divided into two areas, one on the portal in front
of the Palace of Governors where only Native Americans are permitted to sell arts and
crafts, and a second area across the street from the first one, where Santa Fe allocates and
1
In addition to their federal claims, the Chavezes alleged six supplemental state
claims, with which we are not here concerned. The district court dismissed the state
claims without prejudice. If the district court was correct in dismissing Chavezes’ federal
claims, it did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chavezes’
state claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
-2-
licenses spaces for the sale of arts and crafts by non-Indians, with the Chavezes and the
defendants competing on the non-Indian Plaza vending spaces.
Getting down to specifics, the Chavezes alleged in their complaint that in the
spring of 1996, Defendants Houtman and McNeil began using other persons to sell their
crafts on the Plaza who were “nephews” and not true members of their immediate family,
which practice was prohibited by the Santa Fe Use Ordinance. The Chavezes state that
they “vocally opposed” the defendants use of “nephews,” but the two defendants
continued to use “nephews” in their vending business. The Chavezes further alleged that
the defendants employed and paid a mentally disabled homeless man to “threaten, disturb
and harm” them and their business. In this latter regard the Chavezes alleged that when
they attempted in state court to obtain a restraining order against the homeless man, the
defendants contested their request for a restraining order and, based on defendants’
testimony, the state court denied their request for a restraining order. The Chavezes went
on to allege that the defendants in their efforts to “get back” at the Chavezes secured from
a state court three successive ex parte temporary restraining orders and an injunction
which placed “unreasonable restrictions” on them. In connection with the issuance of the
temporary restraining orders, the Chavezes alleged that the defendants had numerous ex
parte communications with the state judge who issued the orders. In the last of their so-
called “general allegations” the Chavezes alleged that the defendants were “motivated by
-3-
a strong dose of racial and cultural animosity” against them and that they “violated” the
Chavezes’ constitutionally protected civil rights.
Based on the general allegations in their complaint, the Chavezes asserted ten
causes of action. The first four were federal claims and the remaining six were
supplemental state claims. In Count 1 the Chavezes alleged that the defendants had
violated their right to free speech and association by not giving them an opportunity to be
heard before the restraining orders were issued. In Count 2 the charges alleged that the
defendants violated their right to due process of law by obtaining multiple restraining
orders and an injunction without allowing them an opportunity to be heard. In Count 3
the Chavezes alleged that the defendants violated their right to equal protection of the law
in their efforts to move them to the “west side” of the Plaza where other Hispanic vendors
were located. Count 4 of the complaint was based on alleged “discrimination in a place
of public accommodation,” the Chavezes alleging that defendants had discriminated
against them in the “peaceful enjoyment of their sales activities on the Santa Fe Plaza by
acts and conduct motivated by racial hostility and hatred.” All remaining counts were
supplemental state claims. After filing an answer, the defendants filed a joint motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l) (lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a
claim). As stated, the district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed
the Chavezes’ federal claims, Counts 1 through 4, and then dismissed without prejudice
Chavezes’ supplemental claims, Counts 5 through 10.
-4-
We believe the present controversy is controlled by Crabtree v. Muchmore, 904
F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 1990). The district court’s memorandum order in Crabtree is
attached to our opinion, on appeal, as an appendix. The complaint in Crabtree was
against three attorneys, and a state district court judge, alleging a civil rights action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 wherein the defendants in that case conspired in the “seizure of certain
property” belonging to the plaintiffs. In holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not
allege sufficient facts to state a claim under § 1983, the district court carefully analyzed
the complaint and the legal authorities applicable thereto in great detail. In that case, like
the instant case, there were allegations of ex parte communications with a state judge,
overreaching and the like.
On appeal in Crabtree, in affirming the district court’s dismissal of the claims
against the three attorneys, we spoke as follows:
In No. 89-6073, we affirm the district court’s dismissal
of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order of
January 30, 1989, which we attach hereto. We hold that the
district court correctly construed the complaint as stating
insufficient facts tending to show that the attorneys had an
understanding or agreed plan with Judge Cook sufficient to
state a cause of action for conspiracy. We also hold that the
district court properly analyzed the requirements under Lugar
v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 102 S. Ct. 2744, 73 L.
Ed.2d 482 (1982), for alleging a cause of action under a “joint
participation” theory.
Crabtree at 1476.
-5-
In this court, Chavezes’ basic position, as set forth in their brief, is that the district
court erred in dismissing their federal claims, and that their complaint contained sufficient
facts to support a § 1983 claim. In other words, the allegations in their complaint are
sufficient to show that the defendants acted under color of state law and that in so doing
they jointly participated with a state actor, the state district court judge.2 We disagree. In
our view, Crabtree controls the instant appeal, and we are in accord with the reasoning of
the district court in the instant case and the result it reached, namely, dismissal of the
Chavezes’ federal claims and a dismissal without prejudice of its supplemental state
claims.
After the district court’s entry of its order of dismissal, the defendants filed in the
district court a motion for attorney’s fees. The district court granted that motion but did
not at that time fix the amount thereof. In the instant appeal the Chavezes challenge that
particular order. Since the amount of the attorney’s fees was not fixed by the district
court at that time, the Chavezes cannot in the present proceeding challenge the district
court’s granting of defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. See Phelps v. Washburn
University of Topeka, 807 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986). We are advised that
2
At oral argument, counsel raised certain matter that was not raised in Chavezes’
brief. We generally do not consider issues raised for the first time in oral argument which
were not raised in the briefs. Thomas v. Denny’s, Inc., 111 F.3d 1506, 1510 n. 5 (10th
Cir. 1997), citing Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 841 n.4 (10th Cir. 1994). Other
matter, though mentioned in the Chavezes’ brief, was not “adequately briefed,” and is
therefor deemed waived. See Gross v. Burggraf Const. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1547 (10th
Cir. 1995).
-6-
subsequently the district court did fix the amount of attorney’s fees, and the Chavezes
have filed a notice of appeal from that order, which appeal is now pending in this court.
No. 98-2144, Chavez v. Propp, et al.3
Judgment affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Robert H. McWilliams
Senior Circuit Judge
We are further advised that the district court still later imposed sanctions against
3
the Chavezes’ attorney. An appeal was taken from that order and is also pending in this
court. No. 99-2218, Livingston, et al, v. Propp, et al. That appeal was consolidated with
No. 98-2144, Chavez v. Propp, et al, and the consolidated case is now in the briefing
stage.
-7-