Court Opinion

ID: 9940556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 19:00:47.694915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:02.920710
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3092     Document: 010111000244       Date Filed: 02/14/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 14, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  MIKE ALLEN,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-3092
                                                  (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-04049-EFM-KGG)
  KRAIG KNOWLTON; ANGIE KRAHE,                                  (D. Kan.)
  in their official capacities,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Mike Allen appeals the dismissal of his pro se action claiming discriminatory

 hiring by Kraig Knowlton, Director of Personnel Services, and Angie Krahe,

 Recruiter for the Department of Commerce, in their official capacities as officers for

 the State of Kansas. The district court dismissed the action on Eleventh Amendment

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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: 23-3092       Document: 010111000244     Date Filed: 02/14/2024    Page: 2

 immunity grounds. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the

 district court’s judgment.

                I. BACKGROUND - COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

       Mr. Allen is 58 years old and has been seeking employment with the State of

 Kansas since 2010. He says he is “overqualified for positions that align with his

 discipline” (he has a PhD in Public Administration), but Mr. Knowlton has refused to

 return his calls. ROA at 13. He also alleges that Mr. Knowlton negatively

 influenced state recruiters, including Ms. Krahe, who would not interview him. He

 therefore sued Mr. Knowlton and Ms. Krahe in their official capacities, claiming they

 violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623.

 For relief, he sought money damages, averring that his “prospects for employment

 with the state are null.” ROA at 11.1

       1
          Mr. Allen cited other federal statutes, and attached a Charge of
 Discrimination alleging both age and disability discrimination, but his complaint
 invoked only the ADEA, see ROA at 11 (“Age discrimination in employment is
 unlawful (29 U.S.C. §[] 623.”). On appeal, he seemingly acknowledges that he
 raised only ADEA violations. See Aplt. Br. at 2 (“Petitioner sought [r]elief at the
 District Court based on discrimination in employment on the basis of age.”). Yet he
 asks that, “[i]f possible,” his complaint be “extended to other federal laws,” id. at 5,
 specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112,
 Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and apparently 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Even if we were to
 consider these issues, however, they would be unavailing. The district court
 explained that to the extent Mr. Allen asserted an ADA claim merely by alleging he
 was disabled, any such claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Bd. of
 Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 360 (2001). The district court also
 explained that his allegations of age discrimination are not covered by Title VII.
 See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 465 n.4
 (1982). The district court explained that the Eleventh Amendment bars his § 1983
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-3092      Document: 010111000244          Date Filed: 02/14/2024      Page: 3

        On Defendants’ motion, the district court dismissed the action. The court

 determined the Eleventh Amendment barred Mr. Allen’s ADEA claim because he

 named Mr. Knowlton and Ms. Krahe in their official capacities and sought only

 money damages. The court recognized that claims for prospective injunctive relief

 are excepted from the Eleventh Amendment bar, but it determined that Mr. Allen did

 not seek prospective injunctive relief.

                                      II. DISCUSSION

        We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on Eleventh Amendment

 immunity grounds. Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1276 (10th Cir. 2017). The

 Eleventh Amendment precludes damages claims against state officers in their official

 capacities. See id. at 1278.2 “When a suit alleges a claim against a state official in

 his official capacity, the real party in interest . . . is the state, and the state may raise

 the defense of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.” Callahan v.

 Poppell, 471 F.3d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). An Eleventh

 Amendment immunity defense challenges the district court’s subject matter

 jurisdiction. Harris v. Owens, 264 F.3d 1282, 1288 (10th Cir. 2001). Absent a

 waiver of sovereign immunity or an effective congressional abrogation of it, the

 claims as well. See Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222,
 1227 (10th Cir. 2010).
        2
         The Eleventh Amendment provides: “The Judicial power of the United
 States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or
 prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by
 Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI.

                                               3
Appellate Case: 23-3092     Document: 010111000244        Date Filed: 02/14/2024       Page: 4

 Eleventh Amendment shields state officials, see Ross v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of

 New Mexico, 599 F.3d 1114, 1117 (10th Cir. 1998), unless the claim “seeks only

 prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials for an ongoing

 violation of federal law,” Callahan, 471 F.3d at 1159 (quotations omitted).

       Kansas has not waived its sovereign immunity, see Ellis v. Univ. of Kan. Med.

 Ctr., 163 F.3d 1186, 1195 (10th Cir. 1998), and the ADEA did not abrogate the

 states’ sovereign immunity from suits by individuals, Kimel v. Fl. Bd. of Regents,

 528 U.S. 62, 92 (2000). Neither did Mr. Allen seek prospective injunctive relief. His

 complaint sought only money damages because he assessed that his “prospects for

 employment with the state [were] null.” ROA at 11.

       Mr. Allen’s pro se opening brief does not engage with any of these issues. See

 Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The first

 task of an appellant is to tell us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”); id. at

 1369 (affirming dismissal of claim because appellant’s brief failed to adequately

 challenge the district court’s basis for dismissal). Although we liberally construe his

 pro se materials, we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in

 constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux

 & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

       Mr. Allen’s only relevant argument is that he could not request prospective

 injunctive relief while also seeking monetary relief. But he cites no authority to

 support that argument, and our cases say otherwise. See Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d

 1101, 1125, 1127-29 (10th Cir. 2012) (recognizing plaintiff sought both money

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-3092    Document: 010111000244         Date Filed: 02/14/2024   Page: 5

 damages and prospective injunctive relief). We discern no error in the district court’s

 dismissal based on the Eleventh Amendment.3

                                  III. CONCLUSION

       Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

       3
          Mr. Allen simultaneously filed in this court his reply brief and a motion for
 injunctive relief, asking this court to “award him [a] Doctoral Degree’s preference for
 employment at the Kansas Office of Personnel Services and its affiliated hiring
 agencies,” Mot. for Inj. at 2. Without objection, the motion was construed as a
 supplement to his reply brief. We do not consider new issues and arguments raised
 in a reply brief, and we decline to do so here, particularly where Mr. Allen did not
 seek prospective injunctive relief in his complaint. See Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d
 895, 902 (10th Cir. 2016).

                                             5