* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 28 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

PARRISH WILKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DENVER DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, and MANAGER,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-1244 (D.C. No. 04-MK-141 (BNB))

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , McCONNELL , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Parrish Wilkins, proceeding pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution against the Denver Department of Safety (a departme nt of the city and county of Denver, Colorado) and an unidentified manager. The district court dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a legally cognizable claim. We affirm. For a number of years, Mr. Wilkins was involved in a neighborhood dispute characterized by a cross-restraining order issued a gainst both Mr. Wilkins and his neighbor. Mr. Wilkins states that he was never at fault in their disagreements: it was his neighbor who caused trouble. In fact, Mr. Wilkins says that he attempted to mediate the dispute, but the neighbor refused to attend mediation sessions. The police, however, always believed his neighbor’s ver sion of events and enforced the neighbor’s side of the restraining order. Eac h time the police were called, it was Mr. Wilkins who was charged with threatening be havior. At one point, he was arrested, jailed, and convicted of felony menac ing. He had difficulties in jail and, after that, he “sign[ed] the tickets of guilt” presented by the police because he “was afraid to go to jail without his medication and supervision.” Aplt. Br. at 1. In this lawsuit, Mr. Wilkins charged that the arres ts and prosecutions violated his civil rights. Following a hearing, th e district court recognized that-3-

“Mr. Wilkins perceives that he has a problem and he would like to the Court to resolve [it].” R., Doc. 13 at 10. Nevertheless, t he court determined that it was compelled to grant the motion filed by attorneys fo r the City and County of Denver and dismissed the case without prejudice, un der Federal Rule of Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). The court provided several reasons for its ruling. First, Mr. Wilkins’ claims were too conclusory to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167, 1176 (10th Cir. 2001). Second, Mr. Wilkins was attempting to hold the named defendants liable for the acts of su bordinates, but supervisors are liable under § 1983 only for personal participation or acquiescence in a constitutional violation. See Winters v. Bd. of County Comm’rs , 4 F.3d 848, 855 (10th Cir. 1993). Third, he had not alleged suffic ient facts to support a claim of municipal liability, which requires the existence o f a municipal custom or policy and a direct causal link between the custom or poli cy and the violation alleged.
See Jiron v. City of Lakewood, 392 F.3d 410, 419 (10th Cir. 2004). Fourth, Mr. Wilkins cannot maintain a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 without showing that his criminal convictions were overturned. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-487 (1994). We review the district court’s dismissal for failur e to state a claim de novo. Felix v. Lucent Techs., Inc ., 387 F.3d 1146, 1153 (10th Cir. 2004). “Dismissa l of-4-

a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he h as alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Perkins v. Kansas Dep’t of Corrs ., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). We have libera lly construed Mr. Wilkins’ complaint, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and making all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See id. We agree with the district court that Mr. Wilkins’ § 1983 complaint failed to state a cla im upon which relief could be granted and that dismissal without prejudice was th e appropriate resolution of his

case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the districtcourt, for substantially the same reasons given by the distric t court in its ruling of June 7, 2004. Mr. Wilkins’ request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
GRANTED. Entered for the Court

Michael W. McConnell Circuit Judge