Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06314/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06314-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

.... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LAURIE L. ROMAN NOSE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

RESOURCES, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F l Lo,~£wea\s 

APPw,id sr:th Circuit 

~PR 15 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6314 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. CIV-91 - 1319) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This case is before us a second time challenging the district 

court's dismissal of the plaintiff/appellant's complaint. In the 

first appeal we held that the appellant's complaint failed to 

state a federal cause of action for habeas corpus relief, civil 

rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S . C. § 1983, violation of the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36 . 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 1 
Federal Parental Kidnapping Act, 28 U.S . C. § 1738A, violation of 

international treaties, and other stated causes of action. 

Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Servs., 967 F.2d 435 (1 0th 

Cir. 1992 ) . We held, however, that "the district court has 

subject matter jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act. 11 

Id. at 438. 

We remanded the case to allow the appellant an "opportunity 

to amend her complaint, 11 id., because: 

We cannot tell from the pleadings whether Plaintiff 

can state a claim that the state court action which 

terminated her parental rights violated§§ 1911 or 1912 

thereby permitting her to petition the court to 

invalidate the state court action pursuant to§ 1914 . 

Thus, Plaintiff's action would be subject to a motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P . 

12(b) (6). See Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 

(10th Cir .1991) (plaintiff has burden of alleging 

sufficient facts underlying legal claim) . 

Id. at 438 (footnote omitted). We also questioned whether the 

Western District of Oklahoma is the proper venue for this action. 

On remand the appellant moved to have the action transferred 

to Montana, acknowledging "improper venue" in the district court 

for the Western District of Oklahoma. R. Vol. I, Tab 26. She 

renewed that motion twelve days later, adding a motion to dismiss. 

Id. Tab 31. On August 5, 1992, the court granted appellant's 

motion to dismiss 11without prejudice to plaintiff proceeding in 

another forum." Id. Tab 33 at 2. The court noted in its order 

that the appellant 11 has informed a clerk of this Court that [she] 

has no objection to said dismissal . " Id. 

A week later, on August 13, 1992, the appellant filed a 

motion for leave to amend her complaint, adding parties, and 

repeating causes of action which were foreclosed on appellant's 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 2 
first appeal, but failing to add any relevant information or claim 

relating to a cause of action under the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

Id . Tab 34 . She simultaneously filed yet another motion to 

dismiss or transfer, on the grounds of improper venue in the 

district court or forum non conveniens. Id. Tab 35. Her 

affidavits submitted in support of these motions suggest pretty 

clearly that what appel lant wanted "dismissed" were the state 

court decrees. Id. Tabs 32, 36. 

In an order dated August 17, 1992, the court "affirmed" its 

prior dismissal of the case, and struck appellant's motion to 

amend and related pleadings. Id . Tab 40. However the court's 

order may be characterized, whether as a denial of a motion to 

amend due to failure to comply with prior court-ordered deadlines 

for amendment, or denial of a motion treated as a motion under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60, or otherwise, the appellant ' s understanding was that the August 5 order of dismissal was the 

terminating document. Thus, on August 19, 1992, the appellant 

sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (1), asking again for a 

transfer of venue to Montana. Id . Tab 41. The court denied the 

motion five days later, stating that it: 

will again affirm its dismissal of the above-captioned 

case for the reason of admitted improper venue, and will 

exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) and 

decline to transfer this dismissed case to the United 

States District Court for the District of Montana on the 

grounds that Montana would not be able to obtain 

personal jurisdiction over the New Mexico Defendant or 

any additional New Mexico Defendants, and that venue in 

Montana would be improper. 

Id . Tab 42 at 3. It is from this latter order that this appeal 

has been taken. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 3 
In her brief on appeal, the appellant once again rehashes 

arguments foreclosed by our prior decision, and raises other 

matters not raised in her complaint or proffered amended 

complaint. What she does not do is directly address whether the 

district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint, 

without prejudice, on the grounds of improper venue, and by 

declining to transfer the case to Montana. 

We elect to affirm the district court , finding no abuse of 

discretion, for if we did not we would be inclined to remand this 

case to the district court with instructions to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim under the Indian Child Welfare Act. We 

stated in our prior decision (when we had before us an appeal from 

a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ) that the complaint did not 

provide enough information to state a claim under that Act, and we 

remanded to give the appellant an opportunity to amend so as to 

state a claim if possible. She did not do so, and there would be 

no reason under the circumstances why this action should not be 

dismissed with prejudice .

1 

For the reasons stated, we AFFIRM the district court's 

dismissal without prejudice , on grounds of improper venue, and 

refusal, for the same reason, to transfer the action to the 

1 In this connection, it appears upon reexamination of the 

state court opinion, Matter of Laurie R., 107 N.M. 529, 533 

(1988 ) , that the tribal court declined jurisdiction, and there was 

evidence that the parent-child relationship had disintegrated. 

Id. at 532, n.1. Furthermore, appellant, who was represented by 

counsel, raised only the issue of transfer to the tribal courts 

under the Act. No other complaint of noncompliance with the Act 

was raised. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 4 
federal district court for the district of Montana. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 5 
.. Appellate Case: 92-6314 Document: 010110201708 Date Filed: 04/15/1993 Page: 6