Grimes v. Watts

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2023
• Docket: 23-2144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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