Court Opinion

ID: 9371193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 18:01:02.872309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:26.045883
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1383     Document: 010110813216       Date Filed: 02/15/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        February 15, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  DAVID ALLEN RICHESON,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 22-1383
                                                 (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-01370-NYW-MEH)
  PHILIP J. WEISER, in his official capacity                   (D. Colo.)
  as the Attorney General for Colorado,

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       David Allen Richeson, pro se, sued Attorney General Philip J. Weiser under

 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violations. His

 complaint apparently arises out of proceedings in state courts in 2010 that led to his

 adjudication as a “protected person” under Colorado law. He claims that status

 adjustment led to a series of personal and property losses, totaling $4.5 million in

 damages.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 22-1383    Document: 010110813216        Date Filed: 02/15/2023     Page: 2

       The district court, relying on the Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment,

 dismissed Richeson’s claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

 We agree that the Eleventh Amendment bars Richeson’s suit and affirm. Under that

 provision, a state official cannot be sued in his official capacity unless Colorado

 waives its sovereign immunity, and it has not done so here.

                           I. Background and Analysis

       Richeson sued under § 1983. He alleges he was denied Fourteenth

 Amendment Due Process when he was declared in 2010 a “Colorado State Adult

 Protected Person.” Aplt. Br. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). Richeson

 purports that this designation, which apparently means he was deemed mentally

 incapacitated, caused him to lose “all his hard earned personal and professional

 possessions.” Id. He demanded $4.5 million in damages.

       Because an Eleventh Amendment defense concerns subject-matter jurisdiction,

 we must first address Richeson’s assertion that the district court erred in finding

 General Weiser immune from liability. See Ambus v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d

 1555, 1559 (10th Cir. 1992); Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir.

 2002). We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

 de novo. Joseph A. ex rel. Wolfe v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253, 1259 (10th Cir. 2002).

       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.” In general, a state may not be sued in
                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1383     Document: 010110813216         Date Filed: 02/15/2023      Page: 3

 federal court for damages unless it waives sovereign immunity. Ambus, 975 F.2d

 at 1560. A state officer sued in his official capacity also enjoys this protection.

 Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1276 (10th Cir. 2017). An effectively raised

 Eleventh Amendment defense deprives a court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Harris

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

        For § 1983 purposes, a state official is the state itself when sued in his official

 capacity. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). And in

 enacting § 1983, “Congress did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment

 immunity.” Ambus, 975 F.2d at 1560.

        Because Richeson sued General Weiser in his official capacity, Richeson

 effectively sued the state of Colorado, which triggers the state’s sovereign-immunity

 defense. There is no indication in the record—nor does Richeson claim—that

 Colorado waived its immunity in this case. Accordingly, Richeson’s suit is barred

 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id. at 1559 (acknowledging that “an

 Eleventh Amendment defense is jurisdictional”).

        Because we agree with the district court that it lacked subject-matter

 jurisdiction in this case, we cannot proceed to the merits of Richeson’s claim and we

 need not consider any other issues. See Harris, 264 F.3d at 1288 (internal quotation

 marks omitted) (explaining that once an Eleventh Amendment defense is effectively

 raised it becomes a limitation on a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction such

 that the court cannot assume “hypothetical jurisdiction” to consider the merits of a

 plaintiff’s claim).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-1383    Document: 010110813216        Date Filed: 02/15/2023   Page: 4

                                    II. Conclusion

       We affirm the district court. We also deny Richeson’s Motion to Supplement

 the Record on Appeal as Described. See 10th Cir. R. 10.4(E) (prohibiting briefs,

 memoranda, and procedural motions from being included in the record on appeal

 “unless they are relevant to the issues on appeal”).

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Timothy M. Tymkovich
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            4