FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 22, 2018 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JOREL SHOPHAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 17-3143 (D.C. No. 5:15-CV-04961-DDC-KGS) CITY OF OLATHE; SAFE HOME OF (D. Kan.) KANSAS; LAYNE PROJECT; KVC KANSAS; ASHLYN YARNELL, Defendants - Appellees. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– JOREL SHOPHAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 17-3144 (D.C. No. 5:16-CV-04043-DDC-KGS) STATE OF KANSAS; KANSAS (D. Kan.) DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; AUDRA WEAVER; KRISSY GORSKI; TEENA WILKIE; MOMS CLUB; MOMS CLUB OF OLATHE EAST, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral (continued) _________________________________ Before BALDOCK, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After Krissy Gorski took the children and made her exodus from the family home she shared with Jorel Shophar a child custody dispute ensued. These cases found their genesis in that dispute; Shophar is unhappy with the manner in which various actors handled child custody matters and brought these cases to correct the wrongs he perceives. His complaints allege violations of various state and federal statutes. The precise issue presented here concerns the legal sufficiency of Shophar’s pleadings. Since the district judge appropriately dealt with the legal issues, we affirm the dismissals of Shophar’s complaints; we do so for substantially the reasons announced in the four comprehensive and cogent orders addressing the issue. BACKGROUND1 In August 2015, Gorski took the couple’s two children from the family home in Kansas and went to a domestic-abuse shelter known as Safe Home. Shophar contacted estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 The following factual background is synthesized from the numerous convoluted allegations asserted throughout Shophar’s federal court pleadings. At the motion to dismiss stage, the veracity of factual allegations is not at issue even if the allegations are “unrealistic or nonsensical,” “chimerical,” or “extravagantly fanciful.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 681 (2009). “It is the conclusory nature of [Shophar’s] allegations, rather than their extravagantly fanciful nature, that disentitles them to the presumption of truth.” Id. at 681. 2 MOMS Club (a support group for stay-at-home mothers), the Olathe Police Department, and the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF), but they all refused to disclose the whereabouts of Gorski and the children. DCF then began investigating Shophar for domestic abuse. He denied the allegations and accused Gorski of prostitution, drug use, and extortion. In September 2015, the children were placed in state custody pending further investigation. At some point, DCF placed the children with Teena Wilkie (a member of MOMS ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals