Buchheit v. Green
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24365
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Buchheit, proceeding pro se, sued Kansas state officials Green and Judge Mitchell in federal court for injunctive relief and IFP status, alleging denial of IFP and docketing of state appeals.
- A magistrate granted IFP; Green objected that the magistrate did not screen the complaint under § 1915(e)(2).
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the requested relief was retrospective and barred by sovereign immunity; Ex Parte Young exception did not apply.
- Green cross-appeals arguing § 1915(e)(2) requires screening before granting IFP and service, asserting efficiency and deterrence rationales.
- We review de novo and conclude the relief Buchheit seeks is retrospective, not prospective injunctive relief under Ex Parte Young; the district court’s dismissal was proper.
- Whether screening for merit is required before IFP is granted is not mandated before service of summons; § 1915(e)(2) allows dismissal at any time if the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim; the district court acted within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity applicable to official-capacity claims | Buchheit seeks prospective relief; Ex Parte Young applies | Relief sought is retrospective; no Ex Parte Young exception | Retrospective relief; Ex Parte Young not applicable; immunity bars suit |
| Need for pre-service screening of IFP non-prisoner complaints | District court must screen IFP applications for merit | Screening pre-service not required by § 1915(e)(2) | No mandatory pre-service screening; district court may dismiss for merit at any time |
| Mootness / cross-appeal viability under repetition-recall exception | Cross-appeal should be considered moot | Dispositive ruling may be reviewable; mootness exception applicable | Capable of repetition, yet evading review applies; issue addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officers available)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (prospective relief inquiry for Ex Parte Young)
- Moore v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 507 F.3d 1257 (10th Cir. 2007) (sovereign immunity basics for state defendants)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (Ex Parte Young framework; prospective relief)
- Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923 (10th Cir. 2009) (screening considerations under § 1915(e))
- Lister v. Department of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2005) (requirements for proceeding IFP; nonfrivolous argument)
- Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (purpose of § 1915(e) to discourage baseless suits)
- Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (capable of repetition, evading review)