Court Opinion

ID: 9918665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 15:00:56.371282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:22.903950
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2063     Document: 010110983910   Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 1
                                                                             FILED
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                    January 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                     Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                         Clerk of Court
  JAVIER BALDERAMA,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                      No. 23-2063
                                               (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01037-JB-JFR)
  SHANNON BULMAN, in her official                          (D. N.M.)
  capacity as Judge for the First District
  Court of New Mexico; MARY
  MARLOWE SOMMER, in her official
  capacity as Chief Judge for the First
  District Court of New Mexico; J. MILES
  HANISEE, in his official capacity as Chief
  Judge of the New Mexico Court of
  Appeals; RAUL TORREZ, in his official
  capacity as Attorney General for the State
  of New Mexico; BETINA G.
  MCCRACKEN, in her official capacity as
  Acting Director for the New Mexico Child
  Support Enforcement Division,

        Defendants - Appellees,

  and

  KRISTINA BOGARDUS, in her official
  capacity as Judge of the New Mexico Court
  of Appeals; JACQUELINE ROSE
  MEDINA, in her official capacity as Judge
  of the New Mexico Court of Appeals,

        Defendants.
Appellate Case: 23-2063    Document: 010110983910        Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 2

                          _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Javier Balderama, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of

 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against New Mexico state court judges and state

 officials. He challenges the dismissal of two of the judges named as defendants.

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

                                    BACKGROUND

       Mr. Balderama filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive

 relief under § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). In his amended complaint, he

 challenged rulings made in the New Mexico state district and appellate courts in a

 domestic relations case related to his child support obligations. Defendant Shannon

 Bulman is a judge for the First Judicial District of New Mexico. Defendant J. Miles

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 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. Balderama is 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).

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-2063    Document: 010110983910        Date Filed: 01/16/2024    Page: 3

 Hanisee is the Chief Judge of the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Mr. Balderama

 also named as defendants Judges Mary Marlowe Sommer, Kristina Bogardus, and

 Jacqueline Medina, and state officials Raul Torrez and Bettina G. McCracken.2

       The defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Balderama’s amended complaint under

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the district court should abstain

 from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and that

 the doctrines of judicial and/or Eleventh Amendment immunity barred the suit. A

 magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that recommended dismissal

 without prejudice under Younger from all claims seeking injunctive and declaratory

 relief and dismissal with prejudice of all § 1983 claims, “find[ing] that

 [Mr. Balderama’s] Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief pursuant to

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) against Defendants Torrez, Bulman, Sommer, Hanisee and

 McCracken and that all § 1983 claims against them are barred by either judicial

 and/or Eleventh Amendment immunity.” R. at 204. The district court, on review of

 the magistrate’s recommendation, overruled Mr. Balderama’s objections and

       conclude[d] that Balderama’s Amended Complaint [did] not state a
       claim for relief pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) against Mr. Torrez, Judge
       Bulman, Judge Sommer, Judge Hanisee and McCracken, and that either
       judicial and/or Eleventh Amendment immunity bar[red] all § 1983
       claims against them. Because the Court [] dismissed Balderama’s
       claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Younger,
       however, the Court [did] not dismiss with prejudice Balderama’s
       Amended Complaint against the Defendants, but note[d] instead that, if

       2
        Mr. Balderama “drop[ped] as Defendants” Judges Bogardus and Medina in
 his amended complaint. R. at 262. Further, he conceded in his objections to the
 magistrate judge’s recommendations that Mr. Torrez, Judge Sommer, and Ms.
 McCracken “were not rightfully included in the case.” R. at 254 (quoting R. at 205).

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-2063     Document: 010110983910         Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 4

        Younger abstention did not apply, it would [have dismissed] the
        Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

 R. at 258–59. This appeal followed.

                                      DISCUSSION

        Initially, we observe Mr. Balderama limits his arguments on appeal to the

 district court’s dismissal of Defendants Bulman and Hanisee. See Aplt. Opening

 Br. at 2. Because he raises no argument objecting to the dismissal of Defendants

 Summer, Bogardus, Medina, Balderas, and McCracken, he has waived any such

 arguments, and we affirm the dismissal of his complaint against those defendants.

 See SCO Grp., Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1226 (10th Cir. 2009) (“An issue

 or argument insufficiently raised in a party’s opening brief is deemed waived.”).

        But even as to Defendants Bulman and Hanisee, Mr. Balderama’s briefing

 failures dictate the result. “If the district court states multiple alternative grounds for

 its ruling and the appellant does not challenge all those grounds in the opening brief,

 then we may affirm the ruling.” Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 950 F.3d

 754, 763 (10th Cir. 2020). The district court stated two alternative grounds justifying

 the dismissal of Judge Bulman and Judge Hanisee: (1) Younger abstention and

 (2) judicial immunity. Mr. Balderama challenges only the first of these grounds in

 his opening brief. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 11, 16, 17, 23, 24 (setting forth five

 issues on appeal, each of which concerns the applicability of Younger abstention).

 Even if Mr. Balderama were correct that Younger abstention did not apply, the

 district court would still have dismissed the claims in the amended complaint against

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-2063   Document: 010110983910         Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 5

 Judge Bulman and Judge Hanisee by applying the doctrine of judicial immunity. We

 therefore affirm the ruling of the district court without considering Mr. Balderama’s

 challenges to its application of Younger abstention. See Rivero, 950 F.3d at 763.

                                    CONCLUSION

       We affirm the judgment of the district court.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           5