Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-05-04054/USCOURTS-ca10-05-04054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 7, 2005 

PA TRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

JOSEPH CURIALE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

OLENE WALKER, GOVERNOR OF 

UTAH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 05-4054 

District of Utah 

(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-581-TC) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

Joseph Curiale brought this action against Olene Walker, former governor 

of Utah, pursuant to 42 U .S .C. § 1983. He alleged various violations of his civil 

rights. Because we conclude that Mr. Curiale's claims are frivolous under 28 

* 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); I 0th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). This case is 

therefore 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. 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. 

Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 1
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and 

dismiss the claim. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background 

Mr. Curiale asserts various claims under 42 U .S.C. § 1983. First, he claims 

former Governor Olene Walker "promoted and protected illegal corruption and 

prostitution of adults that allegedly use minors" and "should be considered 

responsible through the so-called 'chain of command' of having allowed 

corruption to run amuk [sic]" in Utah. Appellant's Br. 3. Second, Mr. Curiale 

claims his neighbors violate the privacy of his home and corrupt minors. Third, 

Mr. Curiale claims that the postal service discriminates against him by not 

delivering mail and packages regularly. 

The Court granted Mr. Curiale's motion to proceed informa pauperis on 

July 2, 2004 and on July 9, 2004, the district court judge referred the case to 

United States Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b )(1 )(B). Magistrate Judge Alba recommended that the district court dismiss 

the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for 

frivolousness, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The district court adopted 

Magistrate Judge Alba's recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Mr. 

Curiale appealed. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 2
II. Standard of Review 

"We review the district court's § 1915( e) dismissal for abuse of discretion." 

McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Curiale is 

proceeding pro se, so "the court should construe his pleadings liberally and hold 

the pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by 

lawyers." Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996). However, 

a "broad reading of the plaintiffs complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the 

burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim can be 

based." Id. 

III. Discussion 

On appeal, Mr. Curiale argues that the magistrate judge and the district 

court mistakenly dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We affirm the dismissal 

because Mr. Curiale's claims are frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). A 

court may dismiss an in forma pauper is claim at any time if the action or appeal 

·•(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.'' 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Frivolous suits include suits based on 

the alleged infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Because Mr. Curiale alleges infringement 

-3-

Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 3
of non-existent legal interests, we affirm the district court's dismissal under 

§1915(e)(2)(B). 

First, Mr. Curiale claims that Ms. Walker, acting in her official capacity as 

governor, promoted and protected the illegal corruption and prostitution of 

minors. However, he al!eges no facts to support this claim, other than his belief 

that waitresses at a certain local restaurant are prostitutes. The connection 

between these two allegations is so tenuous that the claim is based on "fantastic 

or delusional scenarios" and was correctly dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke, 490 

U.S. at 328. 

Second, Mr. Curiale claims his neighbors regularly violate the privacy of 

his home. Mr. Curiale's fundamental right to privacy in his home is beyond 

question, see, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31 (2001), but his claim is 

supported only by the observation that his neighbors, "step[p Jing into the drivers 

side of their pick-up van ... [were] not minding their own business." R. Doc. 20 

at 4. He alleges no facts that suggest a connection between Ms. Walker and his 

neighbors' actions. Mr. Curiale similarly alleges that his neighbors are corrupting 

children. Again, he presents no facts to support this allegation and makes no 

reference to Ms. Walker's involvement. Each of these claims was correctly 

dismissed because Mr. Curiale fails to allege a violation of a legitimate legal 

interest. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 4
Finally, Mr. Curi ale claims that the post office discriminated against him 

because his mail and packages were not consistently delivered to his house. Mr. 

Curi ale also submitted a letter from the U.S. Postal Service stating that the 

postmaster suspended delivery due to Mr. Curiale's repeated threatening behavior, 

which may explain why he is not getting his mail. As with his other allegations, 

Mr. Curiale does not substantiate this claim and offers no connection to Ms. 

Walker. When last we checked, the Governor of Utah had no authority or 

responsibility with respect to the delivery of the U.S. mail. Thus, this claim was 

also rightfully dismissed under § 1915( e)(2)(B). 

We agree with Magistrate Judge Alba that "even when construing 

Plaintiffs claims liberally, the Court cannot decipher any legitimate federal 

claim, nor can the Court discern any tenable connection between the alleged 

claims and Defendant." R. Doc. 24 at 6. Therefore, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion by dismissing each claim under § I 915( e )(2)(B), and the 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court, 

Michael W. McConnell 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 05-4054 Document: 010110646599 Date Filed: 06/07/2005 Page: 6