Webb v. Warren , 644 F. App'x 818 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 23, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DAVID WEBB,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-4186
(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00173-CW)
KEVIN D. WARREN; BLAINE G. (D. Utah)
SEAMONS; FNU BLAKE; FNU
NEILSON; WEBER COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY TRUSTEES; LYNNDA
WANGSGARD; HOLLY COLE
OKUHARA; KRISTA MARIE
DUNHAM; CARLOS MAZARIEGOS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
David Webb appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims. 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
I
Webb filed an amended complaint against numerous defendants alleging his
constitutional rights were violated when he was harassed at the Weber County Public
Library. He also advanced several state law claims. Webb’s complaint was referred
to a magistrate judge who concluded that it was deficient, but allowed Webb an
opportunity to amend. Webb filed a second amended complaint and also submitted
an affidavit claiming that the magistrate judge was biased against him. The
magistrate judge recommended that Webb’s request for recusal be denied and that his
second amended complaint be dismissed. Webb submitted objections to the
recommendation and a third amended complaint. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and concluded that the proffered third
amended complaint suffered the same deficiencies as the prior one. It dismissed all
claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to its screening function
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Webb timely appealed.
II
“We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss an [in forma
pauperis] complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.”
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Our review of an order denying
leave to amend a complaint based on futility is de novo. Full Life Hospice, LLC v.
Sebelius, 709 F.3d 1012, 1018 (10th Cir. 2013). We review the denial of a motion
for recusal for abuse of discretion. ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d
1200, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011).
2
We are in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the district court and
magistrate judge and will not repeat their analyses here. In brief summary, Webb’s
operative complaint fails to state a claim because it does not coherently connect the
facts alleged to particular causes of action. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.
Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]o state a claim in federal court, a
complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant
did it; how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right
the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.”). On appeal, Webb challenges this
conclusion by directing us to a portion of his second amended complaint alleging that
officers asked him for identifying information and provided it to library staff, a
library employee gave him a menacing look, and another library employee behaved
in a flirtatious manner. Even construing Webb’s pro se filings liberally, Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), we fail to see how these allegations
relate to the claims asserted or otherwise provide a basis for relief.1
We also agree with the district court that Webb’s third amended complaint did
not cure this deficiency and thus amendment would have been futile. See Bradley v.
Val-Mejias, 379 F.3d 892, 901 (10th Cir. 2004) (“A proposed amendment is futile if
1
Webb also states that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is an affirmative defense. To
the extent Webb argues that sua sponte dismissal was inappropriate, we reject his
argument. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007) (sua sponte dismissal under
§ 1915(e) for failure to state a claim is proper).
3
the complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.”).2 And we reject Webb’s
argument that the magistrate judge should have recused because his argument is
premised entirely on unfavorable rulings. United States v. Mendoza, 468 F.3d 1256,
1262 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Unfavorable judicial rulings do not in themselves call into
question the impartiality of a judge.”).
III
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
2
In Webb v. Caldwell, --- F. App’x ---, 2016 WL 624894 (10th Cir. Feb. 17,
2016) (unpublished), we remanded for a determination of whether amendment would
be futile after the district court dismissed the original complaint without prejudice
and failed to consider Webb’s proposed amended complaints. In contrast, the district
court in this case concluded the second amended complaint failed to state a claim and
dismissed it on the merits, denied a motion to file a proposed third amended
complaint because it did not cure the deficiencies of the second amended complaint,
and dismissed with prejudice.
4