F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 7, 2005
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOSEPH CURIALE,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-4054
v. District of Utah
OLENE WALKER, GOVERNOR OF (D.C. No. 2:04-CV-581-TC)
UTAH,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Curiale brought this action against Olene Walker, former governor
of Utah, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged various violations of his civil
rights. Because we conclude that Mr. Curiale’s claims are frivolous under 28
*
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). This case is
therefore 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 This order and judgment is not
binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and
dismiss the claim.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Mr. Curiale asserts various claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983. First, he claims
former Governor Olene Walker “promoted and protected illegal corruption and
prostitution of adults that allegedly use minors” and “should be considered
responsible through the so-called ‘chain of command’ of having allowed
corruption to run amuk [sic]” in Utah. Appellant’s Br. 3. Second, Mr. Curiale
claims his neighbors violate the privacy of his home and corrupt minors. Third,
Mr. Curiale claims that the postal service discriminates against him by not
delivering mail and packages regularly.
The Court granted Mr. Curiale’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on
July 2, 2004 and on July 9, 2004, the district court judge referred the case to
United States Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Alba recommended that the district court dismiss
the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for
frivolousness, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The district court adopted
Magistrate Judge Alba’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint. Mr.
Curiale appealed.
-2-
II. Standard of Review
“We review the district court’s §1915(e) dismissal for abuse of discretion.”
McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). Mr. Curiale is
proceeding pro se, so “the court should construe his pleadings liberally and hold
the pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 1996). However,
a “broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of the
burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim can be
based.” Id.
III. Discussion
On appeal, Mr. Curiale argues that the magistrate judge and the district
court mistakenly dismissed his 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims. We affirm the dismissal
because Mr. Curiale’s claims are frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). A
court may dismiss an in forma pauperis claim at any time if the action or appeal
“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). Frivolous suits include suits based on
the alleged infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Because Mr. Curiale alleges infringement
-3-
of non-existent legal interests, we affirm the district court’s dismissal under
§1915(e)(2)(B).
First, Mr. Curiale claims that Ms. Walker, acting in her official capacity as
governor, promoted and protected the illegal corruption and prostitution of
minors. However, he alleges no facts to support this claim, other than his belief
that waitresses at a certain local restaurant are prostitutes. The connection
between these two allegations is so tenuous that the claim is based on “fantastic
or delusional scenarios” and was correctly dismissed as frivolous. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328.
Second, Mr. Curiale claims his neighbors regularly violate the privacy of
his home. Mr. Curiale’s fundamental right to privacy in his home is beyond
question, see, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31 (2001), but his claim is
supported only by the observation that his neighbors, “step[p]ing into the drivers
side of their pick-up van . . . [were] not minding their own business.” R. Doc. 20
at 4. He alleges no facts that suggest a connection between Ms. Walker and his
neighbors’ actions. Mr. Curiale similarly alleges that his neighbors are corrupting
children. Again, he presents no facts to support this allegation and makes no
reference to Ms. Walker’s involvement. Each of these claims was correctly
dismissed because Mr. Curiale fails to allege a violation of a legitimate legal
interest.
-4-
Finally, Mr. Curiale claims that the post office discriminated against him
because his mail and packages were not consistently delivered to his house. Mr.
Curiale also submitted a letter from the U.S. Postal Service stating that the
postmaster suspended delivery due to Mr. Curiale’s repeated threatening behavior,
which may explain why he is not getting his mail. As with his other allegations,
Mr. Curiale does not substantiate this claim and offers no connection to Ms.
Walker. When last we checked, the Governor of Utah had no authority or
responsibility with respect to the delivery of the U.S. mail. Thus, this claim was
also rightfully dismissed under §1915(e)(2)(B).
We agree with Magistrate Judge Alba that “even when construing
Plaintiff’s claims liberally, the Court cannot decipher any legitimate federal
claim, nor can the Court discern any tenable connection between the alleged
claims and Defendant.” R. Doc. 24 at 6. Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by dismissing each claim under §1915(e)(2)(B), and the
judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-5-