Court Opinion

ID: 9919192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 18:01:02.242941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:52.713457
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-2120     Document: 010110984875       Date Filed: 01/17/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 17, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
 BENJAMIN W. FAWLEY,

       Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.                                                          No. 22-2120
                                                 (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-01221-MV-KRS)
 LEA COUNTY BOARD OF                                          (D. N.M.)
 COMMISSIONERS; DANIELLE
 ROMERO, Court Clerk II; SANDY
 BODLE, Judicial Supervisor Specialist;
 JENIFER SALCEDO, 5th Judicial District
 Court Clerk III,

       Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       This is a pro se civil rights appeal brought by an inmate in state custody. 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. Below, the district court dismissed Fawley’s case

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 22-2120     Document: 010110984875        Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 2

 for failure to state a claim. We affirm. Fawley fails to state a claim because he

 cannot obtain the relief he seeks against Lea County or the County’s court clerks.

                                            I.

       Benjamin W. Fawley remains incarcerated and appears pro se. In his original

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, he alleged that Lea County and the County’s court

 clerks violated his constitutional right to access the courts by failing to file a § 1983

 case and a state habeas petition. In all, he sought declaratory and injunctive relief,

 $400,000 in compensatory damages, and $400,000 in punitive damages.1 The district

 court dismissed Fawley’s case without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Though

 at the same time, the court granted him sixty days to file an amended complaint.

       After the district court denied Fawley’s motion for reconsideration, he filed an

 amended complaint. He alleged that the clerks deprived him of his right to access the

 courts when they refused to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a New

 Mexico Tort Claims Act complaint. Notably, Fawley was eventually able to file both

 pleadings. Regardless, he also maintains that the clerks’ actions delayed his filing of

 both actions and deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal

 protection. Like before, the district court dismissed Fawley’s case for failure to state

 a claim. This time, however, the court dismissed his case with prejudice. Fawley

 timely appealed.

       1
         Fawley later acknowledged that the court clerks had immunity against his
 § 1983 claim for damages. Thereafter, he only sought equitable relief against the
 clerks.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-2120      Document: 010110984875        Date Filed: 01/17/2024      Page: 3

                                            II.

          We review de novo an order dismissing an inmate’s case for failure to state a

 claim. McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001). That means, like the

 district court, we must assess whether Fawley’s amended complaint contains

 “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible

 on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.

 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In addition, Fawley is pro se. As such, we

 review his complaint “liberally” and hold it to a “less stringent standard than formal

 pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

 1991).

          Fawley brings a § 1983 suit against Lea County and three of the County’s

 court clerks. In the end, Fawley fails to state a claim against each defendant.

                                           A.

          As a preliminary matter, Fawley raises a host of new claims on appeal that

 were “not pursued in the trial court.” Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Tr., 994 F.2d 716,

 722 (10th Cir. 1993). Such arguments that do not at all impact the district court’s

 ultimate decision “cannot be the basis for the appeal,” and we need not and will not

 address them for the first time on appeal. Id.

                                           B.

          We shift focus to Fawley’s claims against the local government, Lea County.

 On appeal, Fawley does not argue that the County has done anything specifically

 against him. Nor could he. His amended complaint contains no allegations of such.

                                                3
Appellate Case: 22-2120    Document: 010110984875        Date Filed: 01/17/2024     Page: 4

 Instead, Fawley solely focuses on the clerks’ conduct. He argues that the clerks

 failed to file his pleadings and to thereby comply with the New Mexico Rules of

 Criminal Procedure. Thus, even liberally construing Fawley’s amended complaint,

 the only way we could find Lea County liable is via some theory of respondeat

 superior, whereby the County is responsible for its clerks’ actions.

       We cannot do so. As the Supreme Court has already determined, “a

 municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”

 Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Rather, “the

 language of § 1983 . . . compels the conclusion that Congress did not intend

 municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of

 some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Id.

       Thus, to prevail on a § 1983 claim against Lea County, Fawley had to allege

 that the clerks’ “execution of a government’s policy or custom” gave rise to his

 injury. Id. at 694. Not only did Fawley fail to do so; he alleged the exact opposite of

 what he needed to. Instead of claiming that the clerks complied with and executed a

 policy, he said they did not comply with a handful of rules on the books. As a result,

 Fawley fails to state a § 1983 claim against the County.

                                         C.

       Next up, we consider Fawley’s claims against the County’s clerks. Fawley

 “no longer seeks monetary damages, only equitable relief,” against the clerks. R. at

 231. As such, we turn our attention to whether Fawley can obtain injunctive relief.

 He cannot.

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-2120     Document: 010110984875           Date Filed: 01/17/2024   Page: 5

         We need look no further than § 1983 to figure out that “injunctive relief shall

 not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

 unavailable.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir.

 2011) (declining to grant injunctive relief because an inmate did not “show[] that

 either condition was satisfied”). Fawley’s amended complaint does not allege that

 the clerks violated a declaratory decree or that declaratory relief was unavailable to

 him. Consequently, his § 1983 claims against the clerks fail. See Knox, 632 F.3d at

 1292.

         Given that Fawley cannot obtain the relief he seeks against either the County

 or its clerks, we need not get into the sufficiency of his court access and equal

 protection claims. Either way, he fails to state a claim upon which a court can grant

 relief. See Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

                                          III.

         For these reasons, we affirm.2

                                                 Entered for the Court

                                                 Allison H. Eid
                                                 Circuit Judge

         2
          We note that the district court’s dismissal will count as Fawley’s second
 strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act even though Fawley paid his filing fees
 in full.
                                             5