Price v. State of Kansas
670 F. App'x 660
10th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff David Martin Price filed an eight-count complaint in the District of Kansas naming various Kansas governmental entities, a private entity, and an individual.
- The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (failure to state a claim) and (iii) (defendants immune), finding all Kansas governmental defendants immune and non‑state defendants alleged with no meaningful factual detail.
- The district court conducted de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, dismissed the complaint, and denied Price’s requests for appointed counsel and an emergency hearing.
- On appeal, this panel reviewed the dismissal de novo, affirmed the district court for the reasons in the magistrate judge’s report and district court order, and denied in forma pauperis status on appeal, directing immediate payment of the appellate filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) | Price alleged claims against non‑state entities and individuals (details vague) | Allegations lack remotely meaningful factual content and thus fail to state a claim | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; allegations insufficient |
| Whether Kansas governmental defendants are immune | Price sought relief against multiple Kansas governmental entities | Governmental entities are immune from the claims asserted | Dismissed based on immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) |
| Whether the magistrate judge’s report should be adopted | Price objected implicitly by litigating further on appeal | Magistrate’s factual and legal findings appropriate for dismissal | District court adopted magistrate judge’s report; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Price may proceed IFP on appeal | Price sought in forma pauperis status on appeal | Court argued Price failed to show a reasoned, nonfrivolous appellate argument | IFP denied; Price ordered to pay full appellate filing fee immediately |
Key Cases Cited
- Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 2003) (de novo review of § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal)
- Gagan v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473 (10th Cir. 1994) (de novo review of immunity determinations)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard for proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal requires nonfrivolous, reasoned argument)