Court Opinion

ID: 9379028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 15:00:51.275381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:34.521107
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2091     Document: 010110825905      Date Filed: 03/14/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         March 14, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  BENJAMIN W. FAWLEY,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 22-2091
                                                 (D.C. No. 2:20-CV-01342-MLS-KRS)
  ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO, Secretary,                             (D. N.M.)
  NMCD; DWAYNE SANTISTEVAN,
  Warden, LCCF; HOWARD CLARKE,
  Director; MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM,
  Governor, State of New Mexico,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MORITZ, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Benjamin Fawley, a state prisoner appearing pro se,1 appeals the dismissal of

 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the state of New Mexico and officials with the

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
       1
         Because Mr. Fawley proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally,
 but 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).
Appellate Case: 22-2091     Document: 010110825905        Date Filed: 03/14/2023      Page: 2

 New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD), where he is currently in custody.

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

                                    BACKGROUND

        Although Mr. Fawley’s conviction stems from crimes he committed in

 Virginia, he is in the custody of NMCD pursuant to a transfer authorized through the

 Interstate Corrections Compact, see 4 U.S.C. § 112. Mr. Fawley sued the defendants

 in state court in New Mexico. In his complaint, he alleged they violated various

 statutory and constitutional provisions by assessing restitution toward a fund

 benefitting New Mexico crime victims even though he committed his crimes in

 Virginia. The defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss,

 raising, inter alia, immunity under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act and the Eleventh

 Amendment.

        Mr. Fawley responded by filing a motion to amend his complaint along with

 sixteen other filings, motions, letters, and notices. The district court liberally

 construed Mr. Fawley’s filings as an attempt to amend his complaint, and ordered

 Mr. Fawley to file, within thirty days, a single complaint that complied with

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The court denied as moot all pending motions, and further advised

 Mr. Fawley to avoid “shotgun pleading”—that is, the recitation of an extended

 factual narrative followed by pleading numerous claims without adequately

 specifying which facts apply to which claims and which parties.

        After that order, Mr. Fawley filed an amended complaint, a brief in support of

 his amended complaint, and at least twelve other motions, responses, and replies that

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-2091    Document: 010110825905        Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 3

 nominally addressed procedural issues “but also [sought] relief under statutes and

 theories that were not raised in the [a]mended [c]omplaint.” R. vol. 3 at 271.

 Because the district court “still [could not] discern the exact claims [Mr. Fawley

 sought] to assert,” and because “striking extraneous submissions would not cure the

 defect because his new legal theories [were] intermingled with arguments resisting

 dismissal and/or seeking a remand to state court,” id., the court dismissed the case

 without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

       Mr. Fawley noticed this appeal and filed various objections in the district court

 that the district court construed as a motion to reconsider its dismissal under

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We abated this appeal until the district court could rule on

 Mr. Fawley’s post-judgment objections. After the district court denied them, we

 lifted the abatement.

                                     DISCUSSION

       “We review dismissals under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion.” Nasious v.

 Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Just. Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1161

 (10th Cir. 2007). Where, as here, the district court dismisses a case under Rule 41(b)

 without prejudice for failing to comply with Rule 8, it “may, without abusing its

 discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular procedures.”

 Id. at 1162. Construing Mr. Fawley’s appeal briefs liberally,2 he raises four principal

 arguments:

       2
        In addition to his opening brief and reply brief, Mr. Fawley filed
 “supplements” thereto. Although the rules of appellate procedure normally do not

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-2091     Document: 010110825905        Date Filed: 03/14/2023      Page: 4

       (1) it is improper for New Mexico to assess restitution for his Virginia crimes;

       (2) his underlying conviction in Virginia is invalid, but because he can no

           longer seek habeas relief for this conviction, he must pursue damages under

           § 1983;

       (3) the district court improperly imposed a limit on the number of

           constitutional violations he could assert and/or the number of defendants he

           could assert them against; and

       (4) the district court did not extend sufficient latitude to him in light of his

           status as a pro se litigant.3

 These arguments lack merit.

       The first and second do not address the deficiencies the district court identified

 in Mr. Fawley’s pleadings. The district court could not discern, either from the

 amended complaint or from the numerous filings that accompanied it, what statutes

 Mr. Fawley was relying on for relief, what role the named defendants played, or even

 what relief he sought. Nor do they demonstrate the district court abused its discretion

 in dismissing his claims without prejudice for failure to comply with its prior order

 permit these submissions, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(c) (providing that “[u]nless the
 court permits, no further briefs may be filed” other than the appellant’s and the
 appellee’s brief and the appellant’s reply brief), in keeping with our obligation to
 construe Mr. Fawley’s briefs liberally, we have considered the arguments in each
 “supplement” alongside the briefs to which they pertain.
       3
          Mr. Fawley also raises arguments that appear directed at rulings made in
 New Mexico state court in this and other cases. We do not consider these arguments
 because our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the final decision of the federal
 district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 22-2091     Document: 010110825905        Date Filed: 03/14/2023     Page: 5

 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. And to the extent Mr. Fawley now clarifies that a judgment in

 his favor “would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence,”

 which has not “already been invalidated,” he cannot proceed under § 1983 in any

 event. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

        The record does not support the third argument. The district court did not

 impose a limit on the number of claims or defendants in Mr. Fawley’s suit; it

 “helpfully advise[d]” him that “to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must

 explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it; how the

 defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff

 believes the defendant violated.” Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1163.

        As to the fourth argument, Mr. Fawley’s “pro se status does not excuse [his]

 obligation . . . to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of

 Civil. . . Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994)

 (italics omitted). The district court did not merely dismiss Mr. Fawley’s claims due

 to his “failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories,

 his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading

 requirements,” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Rather, after

 carefully reviewing both his complaint and proposed amended complaint (along with

 the litany of supplemental filings he included with each), the district court concluded

 Mr. Fawley’s complaint lacked the very basic “elements that enable the legal system

 to get weaving—permitting the defendant sufficient notice to begin preparing its

 defense and the court sufficient clarity to adjudicate the merits.” Nasious, 492 F.3d

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-2091    Document: 010110825905        Date Filed: 03/14/2023   Page: 6

 at 1163. Faced with Mr. Fawley’s noncompliance with its prior order, the district

 court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice.

                                    CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Mr. Fawley’s “Motion

 for Rule 19 Certified Question to U.S. Supreme Court.”

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Allison H. Eid
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            6