UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

BRUCE MARJENHOFF, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE; FNU 

JENKINS, Sergeant, New Mexico State 

Police; APRIL SILVERSMITH, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-2177 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00364-LH-WPL) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Bruce Marjenhoff is unhappy about a speeding conviction. He appeals for 

relief from the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint without 

prejudice.1

 He reargues the merits of his case at length, but fails to address the 

determinative procedural issue. We affirm. 

 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. 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. 

1

 Our jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 17, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2177 Document: 01019399880 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

In 2013, Marjenhoff was issued a speeding ticket by Sergeant Jenkins, a 

New Mexico state police officer. Following trial, April Silversmith, a New Mexico 

state magistrate judge, found Marjenhoff guilty of speeding. He appealed from that 

decision to a New Mexico district court. On April 7, 2014, state district judge, Louis 

E. DePauli, Jr., dismissed the appeal because it was untimely. That ended matters in 

state court. 

On April 17, 2014, Marjenhoff brought this federal action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. He alleged the New Mexico State Police and Sergeant Jenkins violated his 

civil rights by issuing him the speeding ticket and Magistrate Judge Silversmith and 

Judge DePauli violated his due process rights in resolving the case against him.2

 He 

requested the following relief: (1) a written apology; (2) repayment of $241 in state 

court costs; (3) removal of the points assessed against his driver’s license; (4) federal 

court costs; and (5) no retaliation. See R. Vol. 1 at 13. 

The district judge ultimately dismissed the complaint because it failed to state 

a claim upon which relief could be granted as to Sergeant Jenkins3

 and Magistrate 

Judge Silversmith was entitled to judicial immunity.4

 The dismissal was without 

 

2

 Marjenhoff eventually moved and the court granted his motion to dismiss 

Judge DePauli. 

3

 The judge relied on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 

4

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (The court must screen an IFP case and “dismiss 

the case . . . if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal [] (1) is frivolous or 

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”). 

Appellate Case: 14-2177 Document: 01019399880 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

prejudice and Marjenhoff was afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint, 

which he did. However the amendment failed to cure the defects in the original 

complaint so it was dismissed as well, again without prejudice. 

“Like dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6), we review de novo a district court’s . . . 

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) in an in forma pauperis proceeding.” 

Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009). Because 

Marjenhoff is pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 

1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But we do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. 

Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Unfortunately, Marjenhoff never 

explains why the dismissals for failure to state a claim were error. Instead, he 

retreats to arguing the merits of the underlying speeding case decided against him. 

The failure to argue or explain any error on the relevant issues means Marjenhoff has 

forfeited his right to appellate review. See Yang, 525 F.3d at 927 n.1 (holding pro se 

litigants are required to comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure). 

Affirmed. The district court granted Marjenhoff’s motion to proceed IFP on 

appeal. We have not revisited the matter, but only prepayment of fees is excused. 

Appellate Case: 14-2177 Document: 01019399880 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

Marjenhoff is required to immediately pay all filing and docketing fees to the clerk of 

the district court.5

 

 Entered for the Court 

 Terrence L. O’Brien 

 Circuit Judge 

 

5

 In their response brief, appellees request their “attorney’s fees and costs for 

defending against this frivolous appeal.” Aplee. Br. at 6. We deny the request 

because there is not a “separately filed motion” as required by Fed. R. App. P. 38. 

Appellate Case: 14-2177 Document: 01019399880 Date Filed: 03/17/2015 Page: 4