Diaz v. United States Attorney General
669 F. App'x 949
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Carlos L. Diaz, pro se, sued the U.S. Attorney General and three federal judges (Chief Judge Armijo, Judge Gonzales, Magistrate Judge Yarbrough) alleging they "deliberately victimized" him by failing to apply federal law in another case and violated his due process and equal protection rights.
- The district court dismissed Diaz's complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), then denied motions to reconsider, to recuse, and for an extension to amend; it treated a request for a final order as a notice of appeal.
- Diaz sought the Attorney General’s intervention regarding the judges’ rulings; he alleged no waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States.
- The appeals court reviewed the dismissal de novo and noted sua sponte dismissal is permissible where amendment would be futile.
- The panel affirmed, holding judicial defendants were entitled to absolute judicial immunity and the claim against the Attorney General failed for lack of a sovereign-immunity waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against federal judges can proceed | Diaz argued judges wrongfully refused to apply law and should be liable | Judges argued actions were judicial acts entitled to absolute immunity | Dismissed — absolute judicial immunity barred suit |
| Whether Attorney General can be sued for failing to intervene | Diaz sought AG assistance to remedy judges' rulings | Government argued sovereign immunity bars suit absent waiver | Dismissed — no waiver of sovereign immunity shown |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6) | Diaz implicitly argued his pleadings should survive | Court argued pleadings insufficient to state plausible claim; amendment would be futile | Affirmed — dismissal proper under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether denial of post-judgment motions was improper | Diaz challenged denial of reconsideration, recusal, and extension to amend | District court maintained rulings were appropriate after screening | Affirmed — no reversible error identified |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090 (10th Cir. 2009) (standards for de novo review of 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- McKinney v. Okla. Dep’t of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363 (10th Cir. 1991) (sua sponte dismissal allowed when amendment would be futile)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity bars suit against the United States absent waiver)
- Atkinson v. O’Neill, 867 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1989) (discussing waiver and sovereign immunity principles)