UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

KEVIN LEE KERKHOFF, 

 Plaintiff-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 Our order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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 

May 23, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Mr. Kevin Lee Kerkhoff suffered physical injuries in a 1992 incident 

of workplace violence, which led to criminal proceedings against a third 

party. Decades later, Mr. Kerkhoff sued, alleging that 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. Kerkhoff, he was unaware that restitution 

would be available. 

The West Valley City District Court 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 court granted the motion, reasoning that (1) the 

doctrine of claim preclusion barred the claims against the West Valley City 

District Court and (2) both defendants avoided liability because of 

Eleventh Amendment immunity and expiration of the statute of limitations. 

Mr. Kerkhoff appeals, appearing pro se. We affirm because Mr. Kerkhoff 

has not challenged some 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 notice 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 during 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. Kerkhoff’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. Instead, Mr. Kerkhoff 

contends that a prior action was improperly dismissed.2

 We might credit 

these contentions as an attack on the district court’s determination that 

claim preclusion bars his current claims against the West Valley City 

District Court. But even if we were to agree with Mr. Kerkhoff on claim 

preclusion, he has not addressed the district court’s rationales based on 

Eleventh Amendment immunity and the statute 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 Cir. 2004) (holding that the 

plaintiff waived the alternative ground given by the district court by 

challenging only the district court’s first ground for the ruling). 

 

2

 In 2001, Mr. Kerkhoff brought a federal action against the Utah 

Third District Court (among others). Mr. Kerkhoff alleged that the Third 

District Court had failed to notify him of court proceedings. This 2001 

claim against the Third District Court was dismissed based on Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. 
4 

 We affirm. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge