UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ KEVIN LEE KERKHOFF,
Pl aintiff-Appellant,

v. WEST VALLEY CITY DISTRICT COURT; ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________ CORY R. WALL; THADEUS WENT; BRETT BOLTON; KEVIN BISHOP, Defendants. No. 15-4038 (D.C. No. 2:14-CV -00209-RJS-DBP) (D. Utah)

__________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________ _______________ Before BRISCOE , BACHARACH , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________

* The Court concludes that oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34( a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs. Our order and judgment is not binding precedent, exce pt under the doctrines of law of the cas e, res judicata, and collate ral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 23, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mr. Kevin Lee Ker khoff suffered phys ical injuries in a 1992 incident of workplace violence, whic h led to criminal proc eedings agai nst a third party. Decades later, Mr. Kerkhoff sued, alleging th at the West Valley City District Court and the Utah Attorney General’s Office had failed to enforce Utah laws and to notify Mr. Kerkhoff of his need to submit restitution information. According to Mr. Kerkho ff, he was unaware that restitution would be available. The West Valley City District Cour t and the Utah Attorney General’s Office moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district co urt granted the motion, reasoning that (1) the doctrine of claim preclusion barred th e claims against the West Valley City District Court and (2) both defendants avoided liability because of Eleventh Amendment immunity and expira tion of the statute of limitations. Mr. Kerkhoff appeals, appearing pro se. We affirm because Mr. Kerkhoff has not challenged so me of the district court’s rationales for the order of dismissal. 1 We engage in de novo review of the district court’s dismissal. Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc. , 727 F.3d 1273, 1280 (10th Cir. 2013). Because Mr.

1 When Mr. Kerkhoff appealed, the district court had not disposed of the claims against four other defendants. But while the appeal was pending, the district court entered a final decision terminating the remaining claims. Thus, if the noti ce of appeal was premature, it has ripened, creating appellate jurisdiction. Fields v. Okla. State Penitentiary , 511 F.3d 1109, 1111 (10th Cir. 2007). Mr. Kerkhoff has not appealed the rulings made duri ng the pendency of this appeal.3 Kerkhoff appears pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Even liberally construed, Mr. Kerkho ff’s appeal briefs do not address two of the district court’s reasons for dismissing the claims: Eleventh Amendment immunity and the statute of limitations. Inst ead, Mr. Kerkhoff contends that a prior action was improperly dismissed. 2 We might credit these contentions as an a ttack on the district co urt’s determination that claim preclusion bars his current clai ms against the West Valley City District Court. But even if we were to agree with Mr. Kerkhoff on claim preclusion, he has not a ddressed the district court’s rationales based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and the st atute of limitations. As a result, we would decline to disturb the district court’s order of dismissal even if we were to credit Mr. Kerkhoff’s appellate arguments. See Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. , 366 F.3d 869, 877 (10th Ci r. 2004) (holdi ng that the plaintiff waived the alternative ground given by the di strict court by challenging only the di strict court’s first ground for the ruling).

2 In 2001, Mr. Kerkhoff brought a federal action ag ainst the Utah Third District Court (am ong others). Mr. Kerkhoff alleged that the Third District Court had faile d to notify him of cour t proceedings. This 2001 claim against the Third Di strict Court was dismi ssed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.4 We affirm. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge