Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 5, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PEDRO AMARO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-2155 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01308-MV-LF) CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; (D. N.M.) WEXFORD HEALTH, INC.; UNKNOWN DENTIST #1; UNKNOWN DENTIST #2; DR. ALBA WEAVER; KATHY ARMIJO; TOMMI SALINAS; J. RUVALCABA; MR. RIVERS; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR CENTURION CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE, OF NEW MEXICO; MHM SERVICES, INC.; CENTENE CORPORATION; MICHAEL NEIDORFF; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; CORIZON, LLC; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; DAVID SELVAGE, MHS, PA-C; YOLANDA RIVERA; GLORIA CHAVEZ; JERRY ROARK; J. GAY; DEPUTY SECRETARIES FOR NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO; DAVID JABLONSKI; GREGG MARCANTEL; JOE WILLIAMS; MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM; SUSANNA MARTINEZ; KRYSTLE RIVERA; VINCENT HORTON; THE GEO GROUP, INC., Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 2
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Alleging he was denied appropriate dental care, Pedro Amaro, a New
Mexico prisoner proceeding pro se, sued various individuals and entities
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The district
court dismissed Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint, and he appeals.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
On December 16, 2020, Mr. Amaro sued the New Mexico Corrections
Department (“NMCD”), Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), Centurion
Correctional Healthcare of NM (“Centurion”), Dentrust New Mexico, P.C.
(“Dentrust”), Wexford Health, Inc. (“Wexford”), Dr. Kapil Grewal, and Dr.
Berinda Iqbal (collectively, “original defendants”). Mr. Amaro’s complaint
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
2 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 3
alleged that an “extraction-only policy” for NMCD inmates caused Dr.
Grewal to pull his infected bicuspid, tooth #13, on December 16, 2017,
instead of performing a root canal to save it; and that the extraction caused
pain and various other dental problems. R. I at 21. In 2021, Mr. Amaro
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his claims against NMCD, Corizon,
Wexford, and Dr. Iqbal.
On August 29, 2022, Mr. Amaro filed an amended complaint naming
the original defendants, except NMCD, and many new defendants,
including Dr. Alba Weaver. Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint repeated the
allegations about tooth #13. It also alleged problems with dental work
Dr. Weaver performed on two of his pre-molars, tooth #29 and tooth #4,
between October 2021 and August 2022. Following a January 2023
settlement conference, Mr. Amaro’s claims against Centurion, Dentrust,
Dr. Grewal, Dr. Iqbal, and four of the new defendants were dismissed with
prejudice.
The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who
recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed sua sponte because
it was “patently obvious that Mr. Amaro could not prevail on the facts
alleged.” R. II at 212. In support, the magistrate judge determined that:
• The claims against Corizon and Wexford were barred by the statute of limitations because they arose from the December 2017 extraction of tooth #13, the three-year limitations period ran the day Mr. Amaro
3 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 4
filed his complaint in December 2020, and he had voluntarily dismissed the claims against both parties in 2021.
• The claims against Centurion, Dentrust, Dr. Grewal, and Dr. Iqbal had already been dismissed with prejudice.
• The new claims in the amended complaint regarding tooth #29 and tooth #4 violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) and therefore could not be joined to the suit because they were against different defendants and were unrelated to the events alleged in the original complaint.
• The amended complaint’s newly named defendants could not be joined to the suit because their alleged liability did not arise from the events alleged in the original complaint, which violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).
Over Mr. Amaro’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case.1 Mr. Amaro timely
appealed.
II
The district court dismissed sua sponte Mr. Amaro’s amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. See R. III at 25 (concluding, “Mr.
Amaro’s amended complaint does not state a claim because his original
1 The district court dismissed with prejudice Mr. Amaro’s claims against Corizon, Wexford, Centurion, Dentrust, Dr. Grewal, Dr. Iqbal, and the four new defendants involved in the settlement agreement. It dismissed without prejudice his amended complaint “as to all other defendants with respect to any claims not barred by the statute of limitations.” R. III at 27. “Although a dismissal without prejudice is usually not a final decision, where the dismissal finally disposes of the case so that it is not subject to further proceedings in federal court, the dismissal is final and appealable.” Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001). 4 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 5
claims have been dismissed with prejudice and the new claims and
defendants were improperly added in violation of Rules 18 and 20.”). We
interpret this as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009).
Under this standard, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations
and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Because
Mr. Amaro represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we do
not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991).
Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 5, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court PEDRO AMARO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 24-2155 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01308-MV-LF) CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; (D. N.M.) WEXFORD HEALTH, INC.; UNKNOWN DENTIST #1; UNKNOWN DENTIST #2; DR. ALBA WEAVER; KATHY ARMIJO; TOMMI SALINAS; J. RUVALCABA; MR. RIVERS; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR CENTURION CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE, OF NEW MEXICO; MHM SERVICES, INC.; CENTENE CORPORATION; MICHAEL NEIDORFF; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.; CORIZON, LLC; DENTAL DIRECTOR FOR CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; DAVID SELVAGE, MHS, PA-C; YOLANDA RIVERA; GLORIA CHAVEZ; JERRY ROARK; J. GAY; DEPUTY SECRETARIES FOR NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT; ALISHA TAFOYA LUCERO; DAVID JABLONSKI; GREGG MARCANTEL; JOE WILLIAMS; MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM; SUSANNA MARTINEZ; KRYSTLE RIVERA; VINCENT HORTON; THE GEO GROUP, INC., Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 2
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Alleging he was denied appropriate dental care, Pedro Amaro, a New
Mexico prisoner proceeding pro se, sued various individuals and entities
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The district
court dismissed Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint, and he appeals.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
On December 16, 2020, Mr. Amaro sued the New Mexico Corrections
Department (“NMCD”), Corizon Health, Inc. (“Corizon”), Centurion
Correctional Healthcare of NM (“Centurion”), Dentrust New Mexico, P.C.
(“Dentrust”), Wexford Health, Inc. (“Wexford”), Dr. Kapil Grewal, and Dr.
Berinda Iqbal (collectively, “original defendants”). Mr. Amaro’s complaint
* 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.
2 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 3
alleged that an “extraction-only policy” for NMCD inmates caused Dr.
Grewal to pull his infected bicuspid, tooth #13, on December 16, 2017,
instead of performing a root canal to save it; and that the extraction caused
pain and various other dental problems. R. I at 21. In 2021, Mr. Amaro
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his claims against NMCD, Corizon,
Wexford, and Dr. Iqbal.
On August 29, 2022, Mr. Amaro filed an amended complaint naming
the original defendants, except NMCD, and many new defendants,
including Dr. Alba Weaver. Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint repeated the
allegations about tooth #13. It also alleged problems with dental work
Dr. Weaver performed on two of his pre-molars, tooth #29 and tooth #4,
between October 2021 and August 2022. Following a January 2023
settlement conference, Mr. Amaro’s claims against Centurion, Dentrust,
Dr. Grewal, Dr. Iqbal, and four of the new defendants were dismissed with
prejudice.
The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who
recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed sua sponte because
it was “patently obvious that Mr. Amaro could not prevail on the facts
alleged.” R. II at 212. In support, the magistrate judge determined that:
• The claims against Corizon and Wexford were barred by the statute of limitations because they arose from the December 2017 extraction of tooth #13, the three-year limitations period ran the day Mr. Amaro
3 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 4
filed his complaint in December 2020, and he had voluntarily dismissed the claims against both parties in 2021.
• The claims against Centurion, Dentrust, Dr. Grewal, and Dr. Iqbal had already been dismissed with prejudice.
• The new claims in the amended complaint regarding tooth #29 and tooth #4 violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) and therefore could not be joined to the suit because they were against different defendants and were unrelated to the events alleged in the original complaint.
• The amended complaint’s newly named defendants could not be joined to the suit because their alleged liability did not arise from the events alleged in the original complaint, which violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2).
Over Mr. Amaro’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case.1 Mr. Amaro timely
appealed.
II
The district court dismissed sua sponte Mr. Amaro’s amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. See R. III at 25 (concluding, “Mr.
Amaro’s amended complaint does not state a claim because his original
1 The district court dismissed with prejudice Mr. Amaro’s claims against Corizon, Wexford, Centurion, Dentrust, Dr. Grewal, Dr. Iqbal, and the four new defendants involved in the settlement agreement. It dismissed without prejudice his amended complaint “as to all other defendants with respect to any claims not barred by the statute of limitations.” R. III at 27. “Although a dismissal without prejudice is usually not a final decision, where the dismissal finally disposes of the case so that it is not subject to further proceedings in federal court, the dismissal is final and appealable.” Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001). 4 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 5
claims have been dismissed with prejudice and the new claims and
defendants were improperly added in violation of Rules 18 and 20.”). We
interpret this as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6). Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009).
Under this standard, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations
and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Because
Mr. Amaro represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we do
not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.
1991).
Mr. Amaro argues that the additional claims and defendants in the
amended complaint relate back to his original complaint. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(c)(1) governs when an amended pleading “relates back”
to an original pleading. Where an amended pleading asserts a new claim,
that claim must “ar[i]se out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set
out—or attempted to be set out—in the original pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(c)(1)(B). And where an amended pleading “changes the party or the
naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted,” the claim(s) against
that party must satisfy Rule15(c)(1)(B). Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C).
The district court correctly determined that the amended complaint
failed to meet these requirements. Here, the original complaint concerned
5 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 6
Dr. Grewal’s extraction of tooth #13 in December 2017, but the amended
complaint’s new claims concerned problems with Dr. Weaver’s work on
tooth #29 and tooth #4 between October 2021 and August 2022. And Mr.
Amaro attempted to bring the new claims against a myriad of new
defendants.
The new claims concerned different teeth, a different dentist, and
stemmed from events that took place over three years after the events
alleged in the original complaint – they did not arise from the conduct,
transaction, or occurrence set out in the original complaint. Thus, we
conclude that the new claims and new defendants in Mr. Amaro’s amended
complaint did not relate back to his original complaint.
Mr. Amaro next argues that the continuing violation doctrine applies
to his amended complaint. The continuing violation doctrine can salvage
claims from being untimely because it “tethers conduct from both inside and
outside the limitations period into one single violation that, taken as a
whole, satisfies the applicable statute of limitations.” Hamer v. City of
Trinidad, 924 F.3d 1093, 1100 (10th Cir. 2019). “Said another way, the
continuing violation doctrine, as we have defined it, would apply here only
when a particular defendant allegedly committed wrongful acts within, as
well as outside, the limitations period.” Vasquez v. Davis, 882 F.3d 1270,
1277 (10th Cir. 2018).
6 Appellate Case: 24-2155 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 08/05/2025 Page: 7
We agree with the district court’s determination that the continuing
violation doctrine does not save Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint. In this
case, Mr. Amaro does not allege that any defendant committed continual
unlawful acts within and outside the limitations period. And he fails to
show that his claims are premised on a series of actions amounting to a
single violation of his rights.
“A district court may dismiss a case sua sponte under Federal Rule
[of] Civil Procedure 12(b) when it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could
not prevail on the facts alleged.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1074
n.2 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because that is the
case here, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed
Mr. Amaro’s amended complaint.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge