Olson v. Kansas Department of Revenue, Division of Taxation , 555 F. App'x 747 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 30, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RICHARD C. OLSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 13-3233
(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-02190-RDR-DJW)
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF (D. Kan.)
REVENUE, DIVISION OF TAXATION;
NICK JORDAN, Secretary of Revenue;
RODGER SMITH, Problem Resolution
Officer for Department of Revenue,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Richard C. Olson, pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his
action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Mr. Olson filed this action after he was denied a Kansas homestead rebate,
naming as defendants the Kansas Department of Revenue, Kansas Secretary of
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Revenue Nick Jordan, and Rodger Smith, a Problem Resolution Officer for the
Department of Revenue. Mr. Olson claimed that the denial of his rebate violated his
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and his due process rights
“as to [the] 8th and 14th Amendments.” R. at 6. He also alleged that he was
reported to the United States Department of Homeland Security “for no reason.” Id.
He sought “damages against each defendant personally and against [their] job at the
State of Kansas.” Id. at 5.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Olson brought only
official-capacity claims and therefore all defendants were entitled to Eleventh
Amendment immunity. They also contended that Mr. Olson failed to state a claim of
discrimination under the ADA. When Mr. Olson failed to file a response to the
motion within the permitted time, the court ordered him to show cause why the
motion should not be considered unopposed. Mr. Olson responded but failed to
challenge either of the asserted grounds for dismissal. Instead, he asked the court to
order the defendants to answer his “petition,” id. at 22, and, if they did not, to grant
his motion for summary judgment.
The district court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the action without
prejudice. Despite the statement in the complaint that Mr. Olson sought relief against
the individual defendants “personally,” id. at 5, the court determined that he had
brought only official-capacity constitutional claims because there were no individual
allegations regarding Mr. Jordan, and the only individual allegation against
-2-
Mr. Smith was that he was “hateful and disgusting,” id. at 7. This, the court said,
was inadequate to state an individual-capacity claim for relief against either
individual defendant because it did not make clear what either defendant had done to
Mr. Olson. See Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2008)
(stating that when a plaintiff names a “government agency and a number of
government actors sued in their individual capacities[,] . . . it is particularly important
. . . that the complaint make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to whom,
. . . as distinguished from collective allegations against the state”). The court then
concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the official-capacity constitutional
claims for damages against all defendants and therefore dismissed those claims for
lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Reames v.
Okla. ex rel. OK Health Care Auth., 411 F.3d 1164, 1167 (10th Cir. 2005)
(explaining that the Eleventh Amendment “precludes not only actions in which the
state is directly named as a party, but also actions brought against a state agency or
state officer where the action is essentially one for recovery of money from the state
treasury”); Lewis v. Kan. Dep’t of Revenue, 380 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1213 (D. Kan.
2005) (concluding that the Kansas Department of Revenue is a state agency to which
Eleventh Amendment immunity applies).
The district court next concluded that Mr. Olson failed to set forth sufficient
facts to state a claim for relief under the ADA and therefore dismissal of the ADA
claim was in order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The only relevant
-3-
facts alleged were that Mr. Olson was in a wheelchair and uses oxygen and that he
was denied a homestead rebate. The court considered these allegations to be of the
conclusory sort that this court found inadequate to state a claim of discrimination in
Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010).
Finally, the district court rejected Mr. Olson’s claim that he was entitled to
summary judgment because defendants had not filed an answer to his complaint. The
court noted that Mr. Olson had not filed a motion for summary judgment; that
defendants’ motion to dismiss was timely filed in lieu of an answer, as provided for
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b); that defendants were not in default; and that
the court could find no reason for granting summary judgment. Mr. Olson appeals.
We review dismissals under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) de novo. Colo. Envtl.
Coal. v. Wenker, 353 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2004). Because Mr. Olson is pro se,
we afford his filings a liberal construction, but we do not act as his advocate. See
Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
On appeal, Mr. Olson fails to raise any meritorious challenge to the district
court’s Eleventh Amendment or ADA analysis. He claims he brought
individual-capacity claims against Messrs. Jordan and Smith, but the argument is
summary. Moreover, he did not make it to the district court, and he did not deny
defendants’ contention that he was suing them in their official capacities only. We
therefore agree with the district court that the allegations in the complaint were
-4-
insufficient to state any individual-capacity constitutional claims and that the
Eleventh Amendment bars the official-capacity constitutional claims.
As to his ADA claim, Mr. Olson only reiterates that he is confined to a
wheelchair and uses oxygen at all times, but he did not provide the district court with
sufficient factual substantiation of his ADA claim, and on appeal, he has not shown
that the district court should have given him an opportunity to amend his complaint
before dismissal without prejudice. See Burnett v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Inc., 706 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining Supreme Court precedent
requiring a complaint to contain “more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation” and that the plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Oxendine v. Kaplan,
241 F.3d 1272, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001) (“[D]ismissal of a pro se complaint for failure
to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on
the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.”
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we see no error with
regard to the ADA claim.
Mr. Olson also argues that the district court should have required defendants to
answer his complaint and should have granted him summary judgment when they did
not. This argument is frivolous. The district court accurately observed that
Mr. Olson never filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court correctly ruled
-5-
that defendants’ motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer was procedurally proper
under Rule 12(b).
Finally, Mr. Olson makes conclusory allegations that the district judge
colluded with defendants and was biased in their favor. But “[a]n unsubstantiated
suggestion of personal bias or prejudice is insufficient to mandate recusal” of a
judge. Willner v. Univ. of Kan., 848 F.2d 1023, 1027 (10th Cir. 1988).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-6-