Court Opinion

ID: 9901773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 16:01:29.782009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.969491
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2144     Document: 010110957231       Date Filed: 11/22/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        November 22, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  MATTHEW JAMES GRIMES,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-2144
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00581-WJ-KK)
  KATRINA WATS; SHELLPOINT                                      (D.N.M.)
  MORTGAGE; JOE MCSHERRY;
  BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF'S
  DEPARTMENT, and its agents and special
  master; ALBUQUERQUE POLICE
  DEPARTMENT, and its agents and special
  master,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________

       Plaintiff-Appellant Matthew James Grimes brought a civil rights action arising

 out of the foreclosure of property — the amended complaint identified the plaintiff as

 “Matthew James Grimes Trust” and himself as the trustee. 1 R. 67. He named

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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.
        **
           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.
Appellate Case: 23-2144    Document: 010110957231        Date Filed: 11/22/2023       Page: 2

 various defendants including a state-court judge, a mortgage concern, an individual

 CFO, and two law-enforcement entities and their agents. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The

 district court dismissed Mr. Grimes’s case without prejudice for failure to state a

 claim that is plausible on its face and denied all relief. 1 R. 95–101. The district

 court noted that the amended complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations against

 each defendant to proceed. Id. at 97–101. It also entered final judgment. Id. at 102.

 Later, it denied reconsideration. Memorandum Op. & Ord., Grimes v. Wats, No.

 1:23-cv-00581-WJ-KK (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2023).

       On appeal, Mr. Grimes (on behalf of the Matthew James Grimes Trust)

 contends that he has been denied due process and the district court ignored his

 security agreement, which he contends is a nonnegotiable private agreement that

 supersedes all other contracts. He seeks his land and property back and to be

 compensated for trespass and breach of contract including the security agreement.

 He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis.

       We conclude that Mr. Grimes is appealing a final judgment as the district court

 dismissed all of the claims as well as the case after concluding that, due to a variety

 of problems, Mr. Grimes could not state a claim that was plausible on its face. Moya

 v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 448–51 (10th Cir. 2006). We review the district

 court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted de

 novo. Id. at 454. We agree with the district court that Mr. Grimes cannot assert

 claims on behalf of a trust, see D.N.M.LR-Civ. 83.7; moreover, the claims lack facial

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-2144      Document: 010110957231       Date Filed: 11/22/2023      Page: 3

 plausibility allowing a “reasonable inference that [a properly named] defendant is

 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

        To proceed without prepayment of fees or costs, a movant must demonstrate a

 reasoned, nonfrivolous argument based upon issues raised on appeal. DeBardeleben

 v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). That includes addressing the

 rationale of the district court. Mr. Grimes continues to cite the existence of his

 security agreement as the basis for his claims, without explaining how this agreement

 validly provides him relief. Aplt. Br. at 3–4.

        We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment and DENY leave to proceed without

 prepayment of fees or costs. Mr. Grimes remains responsible for the full amount of

 the appellate filing fee.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            3