Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02137/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02137-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reagan Espinoza
Appellee
Shawn Lambert
Appellee
Dee Nazi
Appellee
Amens Nazis
Appellee
Erik Padilla
Appellant
Patrick Padilla
Appellee
St. Matthews Blonde Woman
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ERIK PADILLA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEE NAZI; REAGAN ESPINOZA;

AMENS NAZIS; PATRICK

PADILLA; ST. MATTHEWS

BLONDE WOMAN; SHAWN

LAMBERT,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-2137

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00515-RB-KBM)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Erik Padilla appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and asks

this court to remand the case to a different judge and allow him to amend. We do

not see how we can. As the district court thoughtfully explained in a series of

orders, Mr. Padilla has put forth only conclusory allegations and fails to allege

*

 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. This order 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.

Appellate Case: 15-2137 Document: 01019506609 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 1 
any legal error in the dismissal of his complaint. We reach the same conclusion

after reviewing his appeal. The district court’s order is affirmed, the remainder of

the appeal is dismissed, and Mr. Padilla’s in forma pauperis motion is denied. He

is reminded that he is obliged to pay the filing fee in full.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 15-2137 Document: 01019506609 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 2