Court Opinion

ID: 9928359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:01:15.128237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:08.518004
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3075     Document: 010110992797       Date Filed: 01/31/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 31, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  VINCENT DEWAYNE GAYLORD,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-3075
                                                 (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-04018-KHV-RES)
  STATE OF KANSAS,                                             (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Plaintiff Vincent DeWayne Gaylord, appearing pro se, appeals the district

 court’s dismissal of his suit against the State of Kansas. The district court dismissed

 the complaint because sovereign immunity insulated the State and Plaintiff failed to

 state a claim upon which the district court could grant relief. Exercising jurisdiction

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-3075    Document: 010110992797        Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 2

                                            I.

       On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a form complaint for pro se litigants, twelve

 pages of exhibits, and a second form complaint for pro se litigants for employment

 discrimination claims. The district court construed these three documents as the

 complaint. Plaintiff asserted claims for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy,

 an employment discrimination violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

 1964, and a civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The district court—

 agreeing with the magistrate judge’s recommendations—dismissed the complaint on

 two grounds. First, the district court dismissed three of the four claims under 28

 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because the Eleventh Amendment provides the State of

 Kansas sovereign immunity from suits for monetary damages. Second, the district

 court dismissed the remaining claim for a failing to state a Title VII claim under

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff appeals.

                                            II.

       “Questions involving Eleventh Amendment immunity are questions of law that

 this court reviews de novo.” Cornforth v. Univ. of Oklahoma Bd. of Regents, 263

 F.3d 1129, 1131 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Sturdevant v. Paulsen, 218 F.3d 1160, 1164

 (10th Cir. 2000)).

       We also review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.

 2007) (citing Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999)).

 “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-3075     Document: 010110992797         Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 3

 obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be

 futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Id. (quoting Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d

 1278, 1281 (10th Cir.2001)). Just as with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

 dismissals, “we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe

 those allegations, and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them, in

 the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Gaines v. Stenseng, 292 F.3d

 1222, 1224 (10th Cir.2002)). And “we liberally construe pro se filings” though “we

 do not ‘assume the role of advocate.’” Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1

 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187–88

 (10th Cir. 2003)).

                                             III.

        Liberally construing Plaintiff’s brief, Plaintiff objects to the district court’s

 dismissal of his claims. While Plaintiff does not clearly appeal the dismissal of each

 cause of action, he references the total damages for which he pleaded in his

 complaint and reiterates the same general facts from his complaint. Thus, we

 presume he appeals the dismissal of each cause of action.

        The district court dismissed most of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to

 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) because the Eleventh Amendment provides the State sovereign

 immunity from suits for monetary damages. Under the Eleventh Amendment, a

 plaintiff may not sue a state in federal court unless the state consents to the suit in

 unequivocal terms or if Congress unequivocally abrogates the state’s immunity.

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-3075   Document: 010110992797        Date Filed: 01/31/2024      Page: 4

 Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Muscogee (Creek)

 Nation v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 611 F.3d 1222, 1227 (10th Cir. 2010)).

       Here, Plaintiff demands two million dollars in damages and requests no other

 form of relief. Because this is a suit for monetary damages, sovereign immunity

 blocks Plaintiff’s claims if no exception exists. One claim—the employment

 discrimination claim—survives as we have recognized that Congress abrogated

 sovereign immunity for Title VII claims. Crumpacker v. Kansas Dep’t of Hum. Res.,

 338 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 449

 n.2 (1976)). But Plaintiff cites no unequivocal consent to suit or congressional

 abrogation of sovereign immunity for his other claims. And we see no exception. So

 sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and a

 civil rights violation under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Thus, we address only his Title VII

 discrimination claim on the merits.

       Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in employment discrimination in

 violation of Title VII because Defendant prevented him from obtaining a teaching

 job. “Title VII makes it unlawful ‘to discharge any individual, or otherwise to

 discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

 conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color,

 religion, sex, or national origin.’” Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192

 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)). Essential to this claim is an

 employment relationship with Defendant. See Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 997

 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Since plaintiff has no employment relationship with defendants, he

                                           4
Appellate Case: 23-3075    Document: 010110992797        Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 5

 cannot pursue a claim for discrimination against them under [] Title VII. . .”) Even

 under the most liberal reading of the complaint, Plaintiff pleaded no such

 employment relationship. And without that relationship, Plaintiff states no Title VII

 claim against Defendant upon which relief may be granted.

       For these reasons, we conclude that the State is immune from suit on all but

 one of Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which a court

 may grant relief on the other. Thus, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Joel M. Carson III
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             5