Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-07045/USCOURTS-ca10-10-07045-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arrowhead Mall
Appellee
Laurie Bordock
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

LAURIE BORDOCK, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant, 

v. 

ARROWHEAD MALL, 

 Defendant–Appellee.

No. 10-7045

(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00186-RAW)

((E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

Laurie Bordock appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights claim as 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Exercising jurisdiction under § 1291, we affirm. 

 Bordock filed a complaint alleging that Arrowhead Mall security violated her civil 

rights by removing her from the mall because she was homeless. Pursuant to its 

screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court determined that her complaint 

was frivolous because 42 U.S.C. § 1983—the statute ostensibly giving rise to Bordock’s 

 *

 The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 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. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-7045 Document: 01018469862 Date Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 1
-2- 

claim—extends only to violations committed under color of state law. See Nat’l 

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988). Because the 

Arrowhead Mall is a private entity, Bordock’s complaint lacked “an arguable basis either 

in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

On appeal, Bordock fails to advance any reasoned argument challenging the 

district court’s reasoning. Observing no error in the district court’s conclusion, we 

AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

 Carlos F. Lucero 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 10-7045 Document: 01018469862 Date Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 2