UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

DANIEL SALINAS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; PAUL ROBLES; 

AMY ORLANDO, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-2147 

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00329-LH-GBW) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Daniel Salinas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint with 

prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We affirm. 

A criminal complaint was filed against Salinas in state district court charging 

him with fraud against the City of Sunland Park in his capacity as mayor pro tem. 

The caption of the complaint contained his date of birth, residence address, and social 

 *

 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 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 23, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

security number. In connection with the complaint, defendant Paul Robles (a police 

officer with the New Mexico State Police Department) executed an arrest warrant at 

Salinas’s residence. According to Salinas’s complaint, “the news media was 

present . . . [and] videotap[ed] . . . [the] arrest[].” Aplt. Am. App. at C-3. A short 

time later, “local news media published the story of the arrest on their website, which 

included photos, video, and the affidavit for arrest warrant and criminal complaint.” 

Id. As to the defendant Amy Orlando (the Dona Ana County District Attorney), 

Salinas alleged that she “would frequently give instructions to . . . Robles regarding 

the investigation and prosecution against” him. Id. Alternatively, Salinas alleged 

that the defendant New Mexico State Police Department did not adequately train 

Robles on how to prevent such disclosures and failed to adopt official policies to 

prevent personal information such as a social security number from reaching the 

public. 

Salinas further alleged that the disclosure of his social security number caused 

him to “suffer[] adverse and harmful effects, including, but not limited to, mental 

distress, emotional trauma, embarrassment, humiliation, and lost or jeopardized 

present or future financial opportunities,” id. at C-4, and required him to “purchas[e] 

security for the monitoring and protection of avoiding credit fraud and identity theft,” 

which resulted in “not less than $1,000” in damages, id. at C-5. Salinas pled that he 
3 

was entitled to damages “under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and [the] Privacy Act of 1974.” 

Aplt. Am. App. at C-5.1

 

Because the complaint referred only to provisions within section 3 of the 

Privacy Act, which applies only against the federal government, the district court 

concluded that Salinas had failed to state a claim for relief against any of the 

defendants. Id. at G-4. On appeal, Salinas does not dispute that section 3 applies 

only against the federal government. Instead, he argues that the court misconstrued 

his complaint. According to Salinas, his complaint actually pleaded a claim for relief 

under § 1983 for a violation of section 7 of the Privacy Act, which bars federal, state, 

or local agencies from denying “any individual any right, benefit, or privilege 

provided by law because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security 

account number” to the agency. Pub. L. 93-579, § 7(a)(1), 88 Stat. 1896, 1909, 5 

U.S.C. § 552a (a) (note). In particular, he relies on Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 1284, 

1292 (11th Cir. 2003), which held that “the rights conferred by section 7 [of the 

Privacy Act] may be enforced under § 1983.” 

Even if the complaint did allege a section 7 violation enforceable under 

§ 1983, we still would affirm the district court’s order. Simply put, Salinas has 

alleged insufficient facts to support a plausible violation of section 7. Unlike the 

plaintiffs in Schwier, who were denied the right to vote when they refused to disclose 

their social security numbers to a state agency, Salinas has not alleged that he ever 

 1 Specifically, Salinas’s complaint alleged the violation of and entitlement to 

damages under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(c)(6), (e)(10), (g)(1)(D), and (g)(4)(A), which are 

contained in section 3 of the Privacy Act. 
4 

was required to provide his social security number, or that he was ever denied a right, 

benefit, or privilege for failing to do so. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge