Court Opinion

ID: 9914881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 17:00:48.685108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:15.984752
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2092     Document: 010110977556      Date Filed: 01/03/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 3, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  MIKE R. SERNA,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-2092
                                                  (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00288-MV-JFR)
  WILLIAM KELEHER,                                             (D. N.M.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       Mike Serna filed a pro se lawsuit in United States District Court for the

 District of New Mexico, alleging due process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

 related state-law claims against William Keleher, who had been appointed as a

 Special Master in a state foreclosure case against Mr. Serna. The district court

 dismissed the claims, and Mr. Serna appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under

 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-2092    Document: 010110977556        Date Filed: 01/03/2024        Page: 2

       This appeal stems from a foreclosure action to collect on a judgment against

 Mr. Serna and his wife Emma Serna. Mr. Keleher was appointed Special Master in

 the action and proceeded with the sale of the Serna’s residence. Mr. Serna contends

 the state court judgment underlying the foreclosure action was erroneous and that

 Mr. Keleher’s actions therefore were improper.

       In August 2022, Emma Serna filed an action in the District of New Mexico

 asserting a § 1983 due process claim and related state-law claims based on

 Mr. Keleher’s actions as the Special Master. She later filed an amended complaint

 adding her husband as a plaintiff. The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims with

 prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

       Only a few days after the dismissal of the first federal lawsuit, Mr. Serna

 filed a second lawsuit against Mr. Keleher, again asserting § 1983 claims and related

 state-law claims. The district court held that (1) Mr. Serna’s lawsuit is barred by the

 doctrine of claim preclusion, and (2) in the alternative Mr. Keleher is entitled to

 quasi-judicial immunity. It therefore dismissed the lawsuit and again declined to

 exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Mr. Serna timely appealed.

       Mr. Serna’s opening brief fails to challenge the district court’s holding that his

 claims are barred by claim preclusion. “Under [Fed. R. App. P.] 28, which applies

 equally to pro se litigants, a brief must contain more than a generalized assertion of

 error, with citations to supporting authority.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &

 Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks

 omitted). Although we review a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, we will not

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-2092    Document: 010110977556         Date Filed: 01/03/2024     Page: 3

 “take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing

 arguments and searching the record.” Id. at 840. Therefore, any argument not

 clearly made in a party’s opening brief will be deemed waived. Toevs v. Reid,

 685 F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we hold that Mr. Serna has waived

 any challenge to the district court’s ruling that his claims are barred by claim

 preclusion.1 Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the lawsuit.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Carolyn B. McHugh
                                             Circuit Judge

       1
         Having affirmed on the district court’s claim preclusion analysis, we need not
 address its alternative holding that Mr. Keleher is entitled to quasi-judicial immunity.

                                             3