Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02159/USCOURTS-ca10-09-02159-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 22, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TRIGINAL D. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-2159

v. (D. New Mexico)

WALGREENS CORP.; MS. FALLAS;

3 CLERKS; 3 MANAGERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

(D.C. No. 09-CV-00286-BB-DJS)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

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.

Triginal Jackson, pro se, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis to appeal

the district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be

Appellate Case: 09-2159 Document: 01018353775 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Page: 1
1

The official name appears to be Walgreen Co.

2

granted, of his civil rights complaint against Walgreens Corp.,1

 and various of its

employees. Mr. Jackson filed his complaint on a form for 42 U.S.C. § 1983

actions, but his allegations also assert claims of discrimination.

According to the complaint, employees at two out of three Walgreens stores

that Mr. Jackson visited in New Mexico refused to sell him alcohol due to what

they considered to be an unacceptable form of identification issued in Utah. No

other basis for the refusal is articulated.

The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because, for § 1983 purposes, the defendants were not state

actors, and, to the extent that the complaint invokes statutes prohibiting

discrimination, there is no federal law preventing a private business from refusing

to sell alcohol under these circumstances.

Applying the usual liberal standard to our reading of the complaint, and de

novo review of the district court’s decision, see Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214,

1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007), we agree with the district court. Accordingly, for

substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion dated April 8, 2009,

Appellate Case: 09-2159 Document: 01018353775 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Page: 2
3

and Orders dated April 15, 2009, and August 20, 2009, we deny leave for

Mr. Jackson to proceed ifp, and dismiss this appeal for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-2159 Document: 01018353775 Date Filed: 01/22/2010 Page: 3