Court Opinion

ID: 9956509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 15:00:53.636658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.312866
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 24-8000     Document: 010111025612      Date Filed: 04/02/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          April 2, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  VANESSA MEDINA,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 24-8000
                                                   (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00241-ABJ)
  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF                                 (D. Wyo.)
  TREASURY; FEDERAL DEPOSIT
  INSURANCE CORPORATION; JOSEPH
  R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as
  President of the United States of America;
  VETERANS BENEFITS
  ADMINISTRATION,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                     _________________________________

       Plaintiff Vanessa Medina appeals from an order of the district court dismissing

 her civil complaint and denying her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, for

 appointment of counsel, and for service of process at government expense.

       *
         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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 24-8000    Document: 010111025612         Date Filed: 04/02/2024       Page: 2

 Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the decision of the

 district court.

                                             I

        Medina initiated these federal proceedings on December 22, 2023, by filing in

 the district court a pro se civil complaint, as well as pro se motions for leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis, for appointment of counsel, and for service of process at

 government expense. Medina’s complaint named as defendants the United States

 Department of Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Veterans

 Benefits Administration, and Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President of

 the United States. The complaint identified Medina as the “Inventor of Digital

 Currency VSL Virtual Storage Layer Fusion” and a “Nonprofit Intellectual Property

 Beneficial owner.” ROA at 3. The complaint twice stated that Medina was seeking

 to “secure the blessings of liberty” and it cited the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

 Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. The complaint also

 made reference to Medina seeking additional time to “prepare all documents needed.”

 Id. The precise nature of the relief sought by Medina in the complaint, however, was

 unclear.

        On December 28, 2023, the district court issued a written order denying

 Medina’s pending motions and dismissing her complaint “pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e) screening.” Id. at 115. In the order, the district court first found that

 “Medina ha[d] demonstrated an inability to finance her litigation in this matter,

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),” and it therefore “screen[ed] [her] Complaint under

                                             2
Appellate Case: 24-8000      Document: 010111025612         Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 3

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” Id. at 118. The district court in turn concluded that “[e]ven

 liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, . . . it fail[ed] to allege facts sufficient to

 show that” the named “Defendants [we]re plausibly liable for misconduct under

 Plaintiff’s statutory claims.” Id. at 119. The district court noted that “Plaintiff’s

 one-page Complaint contain[ed] hardly any discernable factual allegations to support

 her claims.” Id. The district court also noted that the supplemental materials

 submitted by Medina with her complaint failed to “aid the Court in determining the

 merits of her claims.” Id. Ultimately, the district court concluded that the complaint

 did “not contain sufficient factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss” or to

 “state a plausible claim for relief.” Id. The district court therefore concluded “that it

 would be futile to give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint,” and it

 ordered the “claims . . . dismissed with prejudice.” Id. As for Medina’s motion for

 appointment of counsel, the district court noted that Medina offered no specific

 reason in support of the motion, and it therefore “decline[d] to appoint counsel to

 represent [her].” Id. at 121. Lastly, because the complaint “lack[ed] legal

 plausibility,” the district court also “decline[d] to grant” Medina’s motion for service

 of process at government expense. Id.

        Medina filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2024. The district court entered

 final judgment in the case on January 9, 2024, and an amended final judgment on

 January 10, 2024.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 24-8000      Document: 010111025612          Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 4

                                               II

        We review de novo the district court’s order dismissing Medina’s complaint

 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. See Kay v.

 Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). In doing so, “[w]e apply the same

 standard of review . . . that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

 motions to dismiss.” Id. “Under this standard, we must accept all the well-pleaded

 allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most

 favorable to the plaintiff.” Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1282

 (10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] complaint must contain

 sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To

 satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court

 to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

 alleged.” Id.

        After carefully examining Medina’s complaint and supporting documents, we

 agree with the district court that the complaint fails to state a claim to relief that is

 plausible on its face. The key problem, as noted by the district court, is that the

 complaint, aside from identifying Medina as the “inventor of Digital Currency VSL

 Virtual Storage Layer Fusion IO,” contains no factual allegations. ROA at 3. Thus,

 it is impossible for us to “draw the reasonable inference that” any of the named

 defendants are “liable for” any type of misconduct that resulted in harm to Medina.

 Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Notably, Medina’s appellate brief provides us with no

                                               4
Appellate Case: 24-8000    Document: 010111025612         Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 5

 additional clues as to the claims she was seeking to assert in her complaint. Instead,

 it simply alleges, in conclusory fashion, a “violation of constitutional rights to

 property, without due process, notification,” and “disabled noncompliance with

 ADA.” Aplt. Br. at 3. We therefore conclude that the district court properly

 dismissed Medina’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

                                            III

       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Medina’s motion for leave

 to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Mary Beck Briscoe
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             5