Escalante v. City of Gardner

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 24-3058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3058 Document: 010111101612 Date Filed: 08/28/2024FILED Page: 1 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 28, 2024 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Christopher M. Wolpert __________________________________________________ Clerk of Court

MATTHEW AARON ESCALANTE, as father and natural parent of minor S.J.E.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 24-3058 v. (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-02529-JWB-TJJ) (D. Kans.) CITY OF GARDNER, KANSAS; GARDNER POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * ___________________________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________________

This appeal involves civil claims growing out of a domestic case in

state court. The plaintiff, Mr. Matthew Escalante, sued a city and its police

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and Mr. Escalante’s appeal brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 24-3058 Document: 010111101612 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 2

department. 1 The district court summarily dismissed the action for failure

to state a valid claim, 2 and Mr. Escalante appeals. 3

Mr. Escalante asserted claims under

 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and

 18 U.S.C. § 242.

To determine whether the district court erred, we conduct de novo review. 4

We conduct de novo review based on Mr. Escalante’s challenges to

the district court’s rulings. But we’re handicapped in that review because

Mr. Escalante hasn’t mentioned the dismissal of his claims under § 242 or

1 Mr. Escalante also sued unidentified representatives of the city, but they’re not parties to the appeal. 2 See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3 The district court also dismissed the action as frivolous, and Mr. Escalante disagrees with this characterization. For these characterizations, the parties appear to rely on their arguments involving the statement of a valid claim. 4 See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217–1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (applying the “same standard of review for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) that we employ for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim”); see also Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) in an in forma pauperis proceeding.”).

2 Appellate Case: 24-3058 Document: 010111101612 Date Filed: 08/28/2024 Page: 3

§ 1986. Despite Mr. Escalante’s pro se status, we can’t reverse when the

appellant hasn’t said what the district court did wrong. 5

Mr. Escalante does mention his claim under § 1983. But he doesn’t

say how the district court erred in its handling of this claim. He instead

makes conclusory assertions and lodges accusations of corruption against

the state court. But the state court isn’t a party, and Mr. Escalante doesn’t

explain how corruption in state court would undermine a ruling in federal

court.

On appeal, Mr. Escalante also argues that he is entitled to relief

under 18 U.S.C. § 2265. But Mr. Escalante didn’t assert this claim in

district court, and he doesn’t explain how § 2265 would entitle him to

relief.

We therefore affirm the dismissal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

5 See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 (10th Cir. 2005).