A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DA RLEN E SCHM I DT,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 4041 v. D i s tr i ctof U t ah R IC K H A R D M A N , IR S T errit o ry M a n a g e r ; SHI RLEY CO OPER A U G IL A R , T a x P a y e r A d v o c a te M an ag er, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D . C. N o. 2: 05 - CV - 10 05 - TS)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff D arlen e S ch m idt ap p ea ls th e d ism issal of h er c o m p lai n t fo r fa il u re to s ta te a c la im . W e A F F IR M .-2- Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound M s . Schm i dtal l eges t hati n Sept ember , O ct ober , and N ovemberof 2005, t he I R S w r ongful l ydeduct ed $100 fr om herSoci al Secur i typaym ent s t o s at i s fy i nco m e t axes ow ed from 19 91 . S he clai m s that s he o w es no b ack taxes becau se s he has notw orked s i nce 1982, and thats he tr i ed uns ucce s s ful l yt o gethel p fr om b o th th e IR S a n d th e T a x p a y e r A d v o c a te S e rv ic e to re s o lv e th e m is ta k e . M s . Schm i dtfi l ed a pro se ci vi l r i ght s compl ai ntunder42 U . S. C . §§ 1983 a n d 1 9 8 5 , alle g in g v io latio n s o f th e F o u rth , F if

th , S ix th , E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m en d m en ts, as w ell as v iolati o n s o f a stat e c ri m inal statu te. T h e d istri ct co u rt gr ant ed herappl i cat i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis and deni ed herM ot i on for S e rv ic e o f

P ro c e s s a n d M o tio n to A p p o in t C o u n s e l. U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) , t he di s t r i ctcourtfound thatM s . Schm i dthad fa i l ed t o s t at e a c la im fo r w h ic h re lie f m a yb e g ra n te d . T he d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed the case beca us e M s . Schm i dtal l eged no fact s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h anyof herl egal c laim s. M s. S c h m id t filed a M o tio n fo r R e h e a rin g a n d A m e n d in g th e C o m p lain t, and the courtgr ant ed the M ot i on t o A m end. H ow ever , des pi t e the amended com plai nt, t he d i stri ctcou rtagain di sm i ssed for fai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m . M s. S c h m id t n o w a p p e a ls th e d ism iss a l.-3- D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s under§ 1915 (e )( 2 )( B )( ii) fo r fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im . G ai nes v. St ens eng , 292 F. 3d 1222, 1224 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . “D i s m i s s al of a pro se c o m p lain t fo r fa ilu re to sta te a c laim is pr operonl yw her e i ti s obvi ous t hatt he pl ai nt i ff c annotpr evai l on the fa ct s he has al l eged a nd i tw oul d be fut i l e t o gi ve hi m t he opportuni tyt o amend. ” P erki ns v. Kan. D ept . of

C or r ect i ons , 165 F. 3d 803, 806 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . W e as s um e the t rut h of eve r y“pl aus i bl e fa ctual al l egat i on, even i f i tl acks evi dent i arys uppor t . ” Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 9 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) . A pro se li ti g an t’ s pl eadi ngs ar e cons t rued l i ber al l yand hel d t o a l es s s tr i ngents t andar d than form al p le a d in g s b ya la w y e r. Id . a t 1 1 1 0 . W e have r evi ew ed M s . Schm i dt ’ s br i ef a nd the r ecor d bel ow , and agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tt hatM s . Schm i dt ’ s amended compl ai ntdi d notcur e anyof t he def i ci enci es t hatt he di s t r i ctcourtfound. M os tof herl egal cl ai m s have n o thing to d o w ith the fac tual all eg ati o n s o f th e c o m p lai n t. A s the d istri ct co u rt h e ld , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a p p lie s to s ta te ra th e r t h a n fe d e ra l a c to rs , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1985 t o cl ai m s of r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on, t he Four th A m endmentt o s ear ches and s ei zur es , t he Si xt h A m endmentt o the r i ght s of the ac cus ed i n a cr i m i nal cas e, t he E i ght h A m endmentt o cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , and Four t eenth A m endment to s ta te a c tio n . T h e c o m p la in t r a is e s n o is s u e s re le v a n t to th e s e le g a l p ro v is io n s .-4-

N orm ayM s . Schm i dt , as a pr i vat e ci t i zen, s ue a feder al offi cerunderpr ovi s i ons of the s t at e cr i m i nal code. A s t o t he Fi fth A m endment , w e mayas s um e thatthe pl ai nt i ff i s i nvoki ng rig h ts u n d e r th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se , b u t d e sp ite b e in g g iv e n a se c o n d c h a n c e to fi l e an i nt el l i gi bl e compl ai nt , M s . Schm i dt ’ s compl ai nts et s for th no al l egat i ons from w hich w e can d i scern a d ue p rocess argum ent. T o the ext ent that M s. Schm i dtw i s hes t o cont es thert ax l i abi l i ty , s he mustpur s ue herr emedi es under t he I nt ernal R evenue C ode. A cons t i tut i onal l aw s ui tfordamages agai ns tI nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce e m pl oy ees cannots ubs t i tut e fora pr operchal l enge t o the a s s e s s m e n t a n d e n fo rc e m e n t o f ta x lia b ility. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f U tah is t her efor e AFF I RM ED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge