Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02118/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PAUL CAIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

RALPH MAESTAS; STEVEN PIKE;

MATTHEW COX; FRANK

MORRELL; ALFREDO GARCIA;

JAMES TABOR; WILFRED

CARBAJAL; ANDREW CUELLAR;

GREG SCHULZ; JUSTIN ESPINOSA;

EFRAIN HERNANDEZ; SABINO

CALVILLO; GENE ELLIS; DAVID

YAZZIE; JOSHUA YAZZIE;

LAMONT SELLERS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CAPTAIN ARAGON; E. BRAVO,

Warden; R. ULIBARRI, Associate

Warden; J. JOHNSON, Associate

Warden; GEO GROUP, INC.;

SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS;

DIRECTOR OF ADULT PRISONS;

FNU GALLEGOS, Lieutenant; FNU

ROMO, Lieutenant; FNU RAEL,

Sergeant, FNU RICO, Lieutenant;

FNU ROYBAL, Lieutenant; FNU

MARQUEZ, Mrs., Case Manager;

FNU ROYBAL, Case Manager; FNU

SWAGGERT, Case Manager;

SANDRA DIETZ, Parole Director;

SUZANNA MARTINEZ, Governor;

COUNTY OF GUADALUPE; FNU

No. 15-2118

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00131-MCA-KK)

(D.N.M.)

Appellate Case: 15-2118 Document: 01019559751 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 1 
VIGIL, Lieutenant; M. CHAVEZ,

Formerly Mailroom Supervisor, now

Commissary; M.J. CHAVEZ; FNU

JARAMILLO, Ms., Records

Supervisor; FNU GOLD, Sergeant;

FNU CAMPOS, Sergeant; FNU

CAMPOS, Case Manager; GARY

KING, Attorney General, 

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.**

Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Cain appeals from the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of his civil rights complaint filed on his behalf and on behalf of sixteen

prisoners incarcerated in Otero County Prison Facility in Chaparral, New Mexico. 

Citizens of New Mexico v. Aragon, No. 1:15-cv-00131-MCA-KK (D.N.M. July

15, 2015). Mr. Cain alleges that Defendant-Respondent Captain Aragon

“threatened numerous inmates and caused four of those men to get a Major

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 15-2118 Document: 01019559751 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 2 
Disciplinary Report Rather than put their lives in Danger.” 1 R. 11. He alleges

that Captain Aragon and other Defendants conspired to place certain inmates in

housing units where they had been harmed. Id. at 13. Relying upon 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the district court denied the class

certification motion, dismissed the claims of named Plaintiffs (other than Mr.

Cain) without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed Mr. Cain’s claims

with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

On appeal, Mr. Cain contends that the district court erred by (1) failing to

give him an opportunity to amend the complaint, (2) failing to inform him of the

deficiency before entering judgment, (3) misconstruing the complaint, (4)

misconstruing the rules as applied, and (5) changing the caption without notice. 

Whether the dismissal is pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) or Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), we review a pro se complaint de novo and liberally and assess it for

plausibility—whether the factual allegations support a legal claim for relief. See

Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007).

We find no error here; the appeal is frivolous. Beginning with the class

certification decision, which we review de novo, see Trevizo v. Adams, 455 F.3d

1155, 1160–61 (10th Cir. 2006), we have declined to allow non-attorney pro se

litigants to prosecute the claims of others. Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,

213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000). Although as a general rule, a pro se party

should be given leave to amend, a district court acts within its discretion where it

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 15-2118 Document: 01019559751 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 3 
is obvious that the pro se litigant cannot prevail based upon the facts alleged and

amendment would be futile. Knight v. Mooring Capital Fund, LLC, 749 F.3d

1180, 1190 (10th Cir. 2014). 

Mr. Cain can only claim violations of his own constitutional rights. Cotner

v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986). We agree with the district court

that he has not “state[d] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The gravamen of the action lies

with the other inmates Mr. Cain cannot represent. On appeal, he advises that he

was “denied protection” and “placed in disciplinary segregation multiple times,”

Aplt. Br. at 5, but this does not constitute sufficient factual background to move

the individual claims from the conceivable to the plausible.

AFFIRMED. We DENY IFP status, remind Mr. Cain to make payment of

the unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee, and deem this appeal a “strike”

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 15-2118 Document: 01019559751 Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Page: 4