Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01121/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maria A. Bennett
Appellee
Tom Buchanan
Appellee
Cara A. Harshberger
Appellee
Jaime R. Hornecker
Appellee
Tewodros G. Jemaneh
Appellant
David L. Jones
Appellee
Janelle L. Krueger
Appellee
Agatha Christie Nelson
Appellee
Nell Russell
Appellee
Joseph F. Steiner
Appellee
Amy L. Stump
Appellee
Beverly A. Sullivan
Appellee
The University of Wyoming
Appellee
The University of Wyoming College of Health Sciences
Appellee
The University of Wyoming School of Pharmacy
Appellee
Kathleen A. Thompson
Appellee
John H. Vandel
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TEWODROS G. JEMANEH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING;

THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES;

THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

SCHOOL OF PHARMACY; TOM

BUCHANAN, in his individual and

official capacities; NELL RUSSELL, in

her individual and official capacities;

JOSEPH F. STEINER, in his individual

and official capacities; DAVID L.

JONES, in his individual and official

capacities; JOHN H. VANDEL, in his

individual and official capacities;

BEVERLY A. SULLIVAN, in her

individual and official capacities;

JAIME R. HORNECKER, in her

individual and official capacities;

JANELLE L. KRUEGER, in her

individual and official capacities; CARA

A. HARSHBERGER, in her individual

and official capacities; AMY L.

STUMP, in her individual and official

capacities; AGATHA CHRISTIE

NELSON, in her individual and official

capacities; KATHLEEN A.

THOMPSON, in her individual and

official capacities; MARIA A.

BENNETT, in her individual and

official capacities, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1121

(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-02383-RM-MJW)

(D. Colo.)

Appellate Case: 15-1121 Document: 01019530043 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 Page: 1 
_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

 In a 118-page complaint Mr. Jemaneh alleged a conspiracy to violate his

constitutional rights and force him to leave the University of Wyoming’s doctor-ofpharmacy program after he received a failing grade. The district court dismissed the

complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Mr. Jemaneh argues that the district

court erred by allowing the defendants to file successive Rule 12(b) motions to

dismiss, pointing out that Rule 12(g)(2) prohibits a party from “raising a defense or

objection that was available to the party but omitted from [an] earlier [Rule 12(b)]

motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2). As it happens, however, there are exceptions to

this rule. Defenses such as failure to state a claim may be raised successively in a

pleading, by a motion for judgment on the pleadings, or as late as trial. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(h)(2). And certain Rule 12(b) arguments may be brought as well under Rule

12(c). Albers v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 771 F.3d 697, 704 (10th Cir. 2014). Even

when a district court does err in permitting successive Rule 12(b) motions, the error

may prove harmless to the plaintiff’s substantial rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111. And

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

2

Appellate Case: 15-1121 Document: 01019530043 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 Page: 2 
even assuming (without granting) the district court erred in this case by permitting

successive Rule 12(b) motions, we can discern no more error than that. Mr.

Jemaneh’s opening appellate brief is largely a restatement of his lengthy complaint,

and his argument consists of little more than a few sentences followed by a

conclusory statement that the district court’s decision was contrary to law and fact. 

We are mindful of our duty to give his Mr. Jemaneh’s pro se pleadings a liberal

construction, but even in doing so we can discern no reasoned basis for thinking his

substantial rights were harmed by the procedures the district court followed in

adjudicating this case — and neither are we able to discern any error in the merits of

final disposition. 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

3

Appellate Case: 15-1121 Document: 01019530043 Date Filed: 11/25/2015 Page: 3