FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 17, 2019 _________________________________ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court BYRON TYROME TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 19-1031 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00599-LTB) THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL (D. Colo.) CORPORATION, as superior respondent; THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; THE STATE OF COLORADO; THOMAS MONTOYA; PATRICK WILKES; JOSEPH JARIMILLIO; COLORADO BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS; MR./MRS. JOHN DOE & EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPUTIES ASSIGNED TO EL PASO COUNTY JAIL; TERRY MAKETA; BILL ELDER; EL PASO COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT; COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORE CIVIC; TRINITY SERVICES GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. * After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t 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 isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. _________________________________ Byron Todd, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil-rights action. For the reasons explained below, we affirm. Todd’s operative complaint includes six claims and 14 defendants. The district court characterized the complaint as “rambling and disorganized,” but it nevertheless reviewed each of Todd’s claims. R. vol. 2, 103. Todd’s first two claims “concern allegations arising from events in New Mexico from 2007 to 2009.” Id. at 104. The district court dismissed these claims based on improper venue. The district court further found that, for two reasons, it wasn’t in the interest of justice to transfer these claims to their proper venue in the District of New Mexico. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (allowing district court to correct venue problem “if it be in the interest of justice”). First, the district court found that Todd “fail[ed] to meet the pleading standard required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” because his complaint did not “set forth in a discernable manner what each defendant did to [him], when the defendant did it, how the defendant’s action harmed him, and what specific legal right he believes the defendant violated.” R. vol. 2, 105; see also Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). Second, the district court noted that “these claims appear barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations.” R. vol. 2, 106; see also Mondragon v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078, 1082 1 We liberally construe pro se pleadings, but we won’t act as Todd’s advocate. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 2 (10th Cir. 2008) (stating that statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions in New Mexico is three years). Todd’s third claim—which he brings against “the United ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals