FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 17, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
ROQUE ARANDA TERCERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-2034
v. D. New Mexico
JULIAN MARTIN FLORES (D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00982-MCA-LAM)
COMISARIO; RAYMUNDO
DANIEL BAEZ MENDEZ; REYES
DANIEL ARCE DOMINGUEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
Roque Aranda-Tercero, a citizen of Mexico, filed a pro se complaint
against Defendants, all of whom are citizens of Mexico, asserting federal subject
matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”) and the Torture
Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”). 1 28 U.S.C. § 1350 & notes. The district court
dismissed Aranda-Tercero’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
concluding in a comprehensive order that it lacked jurisdiction. The court also
imposed filing restrictions on Aranda-Tercero based on his lengthy history of
abusive litigation. See, e.g., In re Aranda, 546 U.S. 810 (2005) (imposing filing
restrictions on Aranda-Tercero based on his “repeated[] abuse[]” of the Supreme
Court’s process). Aranda-Tercero appeals both rulings and our jurisdiction arises
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
In his appellate brief, Aranda-Tercero fails to directly address the district
court’s conclusion that he cannot proceed under the ATCA because the claims he
seeks to raise do not qualify as torts committed in violation of the law of nations,
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1350. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692,
725 (2004); Cisneros v. Aragon, 485 F.3d 1226, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2007)
(holding “jurisdiction under § 1350 cannot be based solely on a violation of our
criminal code” and concluding plaintiff’s sexual assault claims were “not of a
1
In a supplement to his complaint, Aranda-Tercero also asserted federal
jurisdiction under a bevy of federal statutes. The district court correctly
concluded that none are applicable to the claims raised in his complaint and
Aranda-Tercero does not address that portion of the district court’s ruling on
appeal.
-2-
type that could substantially impact international affairs”). His argument
challenging the imposition of filing restrictions is premised on his assertion the
district court failed to specifically explain why each of the 170 matters he has
filed in state and federal court are frivolous.
Having reviewed Aranda-Tercero’s appellate brief and the appellate record,
we conclude his appeal is wholly frivolous and, accordingly, we dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). Aranda-Tercero’s request to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis is denied because he has failed to advance “a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on
appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991); 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a).
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-