Medina v. United States Department of Treasury

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 24-8000
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-8000 Document: 010111025612 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court VANESSA MEDINA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-8000 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00241-ABJ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF (D. Wyo.) TREASURY; FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Plaintiff Vanessa Medina appeals from an order of the district court dismissing

her civil complaint and denying her motions to proceed in forma pauperis, for

appointment of counsel, and for service of process at government expense.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-8000 Document: 010111025612 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 Page: 2

Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the decision of the

district court.

I

Medina initiated these federal proceedings on December 22, 2023, by filing in

the district court a pro se civil complaint, as well as pro se motions for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, for appointment of counsel, and for service of process at

government expense. Medina’s complaint named as defendants the United States

Department of Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Veterans

Benefits Administration, and Joseph R. Biden, in his official capacity as President of

the United States. The complaint identified Medina as the “Inventor of Digital

Currency VSL Virtual Storage Layer Fusion” and a “Nonprofit Intellectual Property

Beneficial owner.” ROA at 3. The complaint twice stated that Medina was seeking

to “secure the blessings of liberty” and it cited the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Administrative Procedure Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Id. The complaint also

made reference to Medina seeking additional time to “prepare all documents needed.”

Id. The precise nature of the relief sought by Medina in the complaint, however, was

unclear.

On December 28, 2023, the district court issued a written order denying

Medina’s pending motions and dismissing her complaint “pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) screening.” Id. at 115. In the order, the district court first found that

“Medina ha[d] demonstrated an inability to finance her litigation in this matter,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),” and it therefore “screen[ed] [her] Complaint under

2 Appellate Case: 24-8000 Document: 010111025612 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 Page: 3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” Id. at 118. The district court in turn concluded that “[e]ven

liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint, . . . it fail[ed] to allege facts sufficient to

show that” the named “Defendants [we]re plausibly liable for misconduct under

Plaintiff’s statutory claims.” Id. at 119. The district court noted that “Plaintiff’s

one-page Complaint contain[ed] hardly any discernable factual allegations to support

her claims.” Id. The district court also noted that the supplemental materials

submitted by Medina with her complaint failed to “aid the Court in determining the

merits of her claims.” Id. Ultimately, the district court concluded that the complaint

did “not contain sufficient factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss” or to

“state a plausible claim for relief.” Id. The district court therefore concluded “that it

would be futile to give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her Complaint,” and it

ordered the “claims . . . dismissed with prejudice.” Id. As for Medina’s motion for

appointment of counsel, the district court noted that Medina offered no specific

reason in support of the motion, and it therefore “decline[d] to appoint counsel to

represent [her].” Id. at 121. Lastly, because the complaint “lack[ed] legal

plausibility,” the district court also “decline[d] to grant” Medina’s motion for service

of process at government expense. Id.

Medina filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2024. The district court entered

final judgment in the case on January 9, 2024, and an amended final judgment on

January 10, 2024.

3 Appellate Case: 24-8000 Document: 010111025612 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 Page: 4

II

We review de novo the district court’s order dismissing Medina’s complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. See Kay v.

Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). In doing so, “[w]e apply the same

standard of review . . . that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

motions to dismiss.” Id. “Under this standard, we must accept all the well-pleaded

allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff.” Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1282

(10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). To

satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct

alleged.” Id.

After carefully examining Medina’s complaint and supporting documents, we

agree with the district court that the complaint fails to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face. The key problem, as noted by the district court, is that the

complaint, aside from identifying Medina as the “inventor of Digital Currency VSL

Virtual Storage Layer Fusion IO,” contains no factual allegations. ROA at 3. Thus,

it is impossible for us to “draw the reasonable inference that” any of the named

defendants are “liable for” any type of misconduct that resulted in harm to Medina.

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Notably, Medina’s appellate brief provides us with no

4 Appellate Case: 24-8000 Document: 010111025612 Date Filed: 04/02/2024 Page: 5

additional clues as to the claims she was seeking to assert in her complaint. Instead,

it simply alleges, in conclusory fashion, a “violation of constitutional rights to

property, without due process, notification,” and “disabled noncompliance with

ADA.” Aplt. Br. at 3. We therefore conclude that the district court properly

dismissed Medina’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

III

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Medina’s motion for leave

to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge