UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MATTHEW JAMES GRIMES, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. KATRINA WATS; SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE; JOE MCSHERRY; BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, and its agents and special master; ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, and its agents and special master, Defendants - Appellees. No. 23-2144 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV -00581-WJ-KK) (D.N.M.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , KELLY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Matthew James Grimes brought a civil ri ghts action arising out of the foreclosure of property — the am ended complaint identif ied the plaintiff as “Matthew James Grimes Trust” and himself as the trust ee. 1 R. 67. He named

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** 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. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 22, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-2144 Document: 010110957231 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 Page: 12 various defendants including a state-court judge, a mortga ge concern, an individual CFO, and two law-enforcement entities and their agents. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Mr. Grimes’s case without prejudice for failure to state a claim that is plausible on its face and denied all relief. 1 R. 95–101. The district court noted that the amended complaint lack ed sufficient factual allegations against each defendant to proceed. Id. at 97–101. It also entered final judgment. Id. at 102. Later, it denied reconsideration. Me morandum Op. & Ord., Grimes v. Wats, No. 1:23-cv-00581-WJ-KK (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2023). On appeal, Mr. Grimes (on behalf of the Matthew James Grimes Trust) contends that he has been denied due pr ocess and the district court ignored his security agreement, which he contends is a nonnegotiable private agreement that supersedes all other contr acts. He seeks his land a nd property back and to be compensated for trespass and br each of contract including the security agreement. He also seeks to pro ceed in forma pauperis. We conclude that Mr. Grimes is appealing a final judgm ent as the district court dismissed all of the claims as well as the case after concl uding that, due to a variety of problems, Mr. Grimes coul d not state a claim that was plausible on its face. Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 448–51 (10th Cir. 2006). We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de novo. Id. at 454. We agree with the dist rict court that Mr. Grimes cannot assert claims on behalf of a trust, see D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.7; moreove r, the claims lack facial Appellate Case: 23-2144 Document: 010110957231 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 Page: 23 plausibility allowing a “reasonable inference that [a properly na med] defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcro ft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). To proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, a movant must demonstrate a reasoned, nonfrivolous argumen t based upon issues raised on appeal. DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). That includes addressing the rationale of the district court. Mr. Grim es continues to cite the existence of his security agreement as the basis for his claims, without explaining how this agreement validly provides him relie f. Aplt. Br. at 3–4. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY l eave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs. Mr. Grimes remains responsible for the full amount of the appellate filing fee.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-2144 Document: 010110957231 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 Page: 3