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 rights action arising 

out of the foreclosure of property — the amended complaint identified the plaintiff as 

“Matthew James Grimes Trust” and himself as the trustee. 1 R. 67. He named 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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. ** 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. 

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: 1
2 

various defendants including a state-court judge, a mortgage 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 lacked sufficient factual allegations against 

each defendant to proceed. Id. at 97–101. It also entered final judgment. Id. at 102. 

Later, it denied reconsideration. Memorandum 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 process and the district court ignored his 

security agreement, which he contends is a nonnegotiable private agreement that 

supersedes all other contracts. He seeks his land and property back and to be 

compensated for trespass and breach of contract including the security agreement. 

He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We conclude that Mr. Grimes is appealing a final judgment as the district court 

dismissed all of the claims as well as the case after concluding that, due to a variety 

of problems, Mr. Grimes could 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 district court that Mr. Grimes cannot assert 

claims on behalf of a trust, see D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.7; moreover, the claims lack facial 

Appellate Case: 23-2144 Document: 010110957231 Date Filed: 11/22/2023 Page: 2
3 

plausibility allowing a “reasonable inference that [a properly named] defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

To proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, a movant must demonstrate a 

reasoned, nonfrivolous argument 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. Grimes continues to cite the existence of his 

security agreement as the basis for his claims, without explaining how this agreement 

validly provides him relief. Aplt. Br. at 3–4. 

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY leave 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