Appellate Case: 21-2138 Document: 010110652120 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 1
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 3, 2022
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
FORREST EVANS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 21-2138
(D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00833-KWR-CG)
ALICIA ORTIZ; MARTA FLORES, (D. N.M.)
Public Service Representative;
MARGARET WILLIAMS; DAVID
ANCHONDO, Owner of Anchondos MVD
Services; IRENE DE LA CRUZ, Manager,
Hobbs NM MVD; DANETTE BARELA;
GARASIMOS REZATOS, MVD
Department, Deputy Director; HTET
GONZALES, MVD, Department, Deputy
Director; MARK WILLIAMS; WILLIAM
DURAN; ANGEL MARTINEZ, Bureau
Chief; CITY OF HOBBS, NM,
Municipality; CITY OF CARLSBAD,
NEW MEXICO; CITY OF LOVINGTON,
NM; MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM,
Governor of New Mexico; SUSANNA
MARTINEZ, Former Governor of New
Mexico; STEPHANIE SCHARDIN
CLARK, Cabinet Secretary; TOBY
SPEARS, CPA Finance Director, all in
their official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 21-2138 Document: 010110652120 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 2
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Forrest Evans, who is pro se,1 sued eighteen defendants under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging equal protection and due process violations while “engaged in the
MVD business from 2012 [through] June 2019.” R. Vol. 1 at 23. Evans also asserted
state-law claims, such as defamation. The district court dismissed all his § 1983
claims sua sponte, either as time-barred or for failure to state a claim. The court then
declined supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Evans now appeals the
dismissal of his claims. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
We review sua sponte dismissals of complaints de novo and construe well-
pleaded facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. Smith v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr.,
23 F.3d 339, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). We review denials of supplemental jurisdiction for
abuse of discretion. Nielander v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 582 F.3d 1155, 1172 (10th
Cir. 2009).
Evans doesn’t attack the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of
Dismissal (“Memorandum Opinion”), which explained why his federal claims failed.
Evans seems to instead argue that, based on the one-page Rule 58 Judgment, the
**
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.
1
Since Evans is a pro se litigant, we liberally construe his filings, Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
2
Appellate Case: 21-2138 Document: 010110652120 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 Page: 3
district court dismissed his complaint without reviewing its merits. See Op. Br. at 10
(“The District Court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law as to the merits
of my complaint.”); see also Op. Br. at 13 (“The District court arbitrarily without any
review summarily dismissed my case under Rule 58[.]”). Yet the Rule 58 Judgment
states that it was entered based on the Memorandum Opinion. And contrary to
Evans’s argument, the Memorandum Opinion explains—on a defendant-by-defendant
basis, with ample citations to his complaint and binding caselaw—why his federal
claims were dismissed. We agree with the district court’s well-reasoned decision.
And because none of Evans’s federal claims survived, the district court acted within
its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
3