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 cour t’s order dismissing his complaint with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. A criminal complaint was fi led against Salinas in stat e 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, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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 Court2 security number. In connection with the complaint, de fendant Paul Robles (a police officer with the New Mexico State Police Department) execu ted an arrest warrant at Salinas’s residence. Acco rding to Salinas’s complain t, “the news media was present . . . [and] videotap[ed] . . . [the] arrest[].” Aplt . Am. App. at C-3. A short time later, “local news medi a published the story of the ar rest on their website, which included photos, video, and th e affidavit for arrest warrant and criminal complaint.” Id . As to the defendant Amy Orlando (the Dona Ana County District Attorney), Salinas alleged that she “woul d frequently give instructions to . . . Robles regarding the investigation and pros ecution against” him. Id

. Alternatively, Salinas alleged that the defendant New Mexico State Poli ce 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 so cial security number caused him to “suffer[] adverse and harmful effect s, 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 require d him to “purchas[e] security for the monitoring a nd protection of avoiding cr edit fraud and id entity theft,” which resulted in “not less than $1,000” in damages, id. at C-5. Salinas pled that he3 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 complain t referred only to provisions within section 3 of the Privacy Act, which applies only against th e federal government, the district court concluded that Salinas had failed to state a claim fo r 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. Instea d, 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 indivi dual 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 “t he 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 plausi ble violation of section 7. Unlike the plaintiffs in Schwier , who were denied the right to vot e when they refused to disclose their social security numbers to a state agency, Salinas ha s not alleged that he ever

1 Specifically, Salinas’s complaint allege d 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 soci al 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