Court Opinion

ID: 9965121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 18:00:45.142917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.520783
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 24-3033     Document: 010111041489       Date Filed: 05/01/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            May 1, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  BENJAMIN VELAYO,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 24-3033
                                                  (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-04006-HLT-ADM)
  KEY MANAGEMENT CO.,                                           (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Benjamin Velayo, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action in the United States

 District Court for the District of Kansas. He claimed he was “entitled to . . .

 $100,000” from “Angie Meister or the Key Management Company” because they

 caused him to “almost bec[o]me homeless.” App. at 6-7.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 24-3033     Document: 010111041489        Date Filed: 05/01/2024    Page: 2

         The district court granted Mr. Velayo leave to proceed in forma pauperis

 (“ifp”). A magistrate judge screened his pro se complaint under 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). She recommended dismissal for failure to allege a basis for

 subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Velayo timely objected. The district court adopted

 the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissed the claim without

 prejudice, and closed the case.

         Mr. Velayo timely appealed. He argues the district court erred because

 Ms. Meister or someone else in the Key Management Company denied his apartment

 rental application based on an incorrect statement that he had been previously

 evicted. Aplt. Br. at 2. He alleges violations of “the law about unfair housing.” Id.

 at 3.

         “[W]e review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal pursuant to

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) in an in forma pauperis proceeding.” Vasquez Arroyo v.

 Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009). Because Mr. Velayo appears pro se,

 we construe his filings liberally but do not serve as his advocate. Garrett v. Selby

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

         Mr. Velayo’s complaint fails to allege any basis for jurisdiction, including

 diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Mr. Velayo does not claim the parties are

 diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and he indicated on his form complaint that all parties

 are Kansas citizens. Nor does the complaint state a federal question. See id. § 1331.

 Although Mr. Velayo checked the box in the form complaint alleging a civil-rights

                                             2
Appellate Case: 24-3033     Document: 010111041489        Date Filed: 05/01/2024     Page: 3

 violation, the complaint did not otherwise mention civil rights or reference a

 particular federal law.

       In his brief to this court, Mr. Velayo alleges violations of “the law about unfair

 housing.” Aplt. Br. at 3. But even if that were specific enough to show he alleges a

 violation of federal and not state housing law, “[a] federal court’s jurisdiction must

 clearly appear from the face of a complaint,” and he raised a violation of housing law

 for the first time in his appellate brief. Whitelock v. Leatherman, 460 F.2d 507, 514

 (10th Cir. 1972); see Wall v. Tanner Clinic, 691 F. App’x 525, 526 (10th Cir. 2017)

 (holding plaintiff failed to allege diversity or federal question jurisdiction on the face

 of the complaint).

       We affirm the district court’s dismissal.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             3