Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02182/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Art Encinias
Appellee
First Judicial
Appellee
First Judicial District Court Clerk
Appellee
James Hall
Appellee
Karen Marie Kline
Appellant
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 31, 2005 

PA TRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

KAREN MARIE KLINE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

JAMES HALL, Judge; ART 

ENCINIAS, former judge; FIRST 

JUDICIAL; FIRST JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT COURT CLERK; NEW 

MEXICO COURT OF APPEALS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 04-2182 

(D.C. No. CIV-04-309 ACT/DJS) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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. 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: 04-2182 Document: 010110642509 Date Filed: 05/31/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff Karen Marie Kline, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's 

order dismissing her action alleging that defendants, who are individuals and 

entities connected with the New Mexico judicial system, made it difficult for her 

to litigate her prose state civil actions. Ms. Kline argues that the district court 

erred by ( 1) wrongly determining that she failed to state a claim under Title II of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34; and (2) 

unfairly denying leave to amend so that she could clarify her ADA claim. 1 

We review the district court's order of dismissal de nova, taking all facts 

alleged in the complaint as true and indulging all reasonable inferences in favor 

of plaintiff. Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2001) "We further 

construe a prose complaint liberally." Id. The law to be applied to Ms. Kline's 

appeal is set out in Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 1994 (2004), in which the 

Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA, as it "applies to the class of cases 

implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid 

exercise of Congress' power to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth 

Amendment.'' 

This court has examined the briefs, the record, and the applicable law. We 

acknowledge Ms. Kline's contention that she has a memory deficit and an 

On appeal, plaintiff does not contest the district court's dismissal of her 

civil-rights claims against Judge Encinias and Judge Hall, based on the doctrine 

of judicial immunity. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-2182 Document: 010110642509 Date Filed: 05/31/2005 Page: 2
information-processing disorder which hamper her pursuit of prose litigation. 

Like the district court, however, we conclude that her allegations do not "suggest 

that [defendants] have denied her access to the judicial system because of her 

disability." R., doc. 21 at 8 (citing Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S. Ct. at 1980-83, 

1992-93). 

As for the denial of leave to amend the complaint, we review the district 

court's order for an abuse of discretion. Wessel v. City of Albuquerque, 299 F.3d 

1186, 1196-97 (10th Cir. 2002). Ms. Kline notes that Tennessee v. Lane was 

announced after defendants' dismissal motion was at issue and states that, in light 

of this timing, she should have been permitted to elaborate upon her claims and 

discuss the effect of that decision. The district court's order of dismissal, 

however, carefully analyzed plaintiffs claims under the principles enunciated in 

Tennessee v. Lane. Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion to amend. See Curley, 246 F .3d at 1281-82 

(holding dismissal of prose complaint proper where it is obvious plaintiff cannot 

prevail on the facts alleged and it would be futile to provide an opportunity to 

amend). 

We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially 

the same reasons stated by the district court in its orders filed May 19, 2004 and 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2182 Document: 010110642509 Date Filed: 05/31/2005 Page: 3
June 3, 2004. Ms. Kline's motion to proceed informa pauperis on appeal is 

GRANTED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-2182 Document: 010110642509 Date Filed: 05/31/2005 Page: 4