512 F. App'x 783
10th Cir.2013Background
- Weldon, a Wyoming state prisoner, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging numerous constitutional and statutory violations by Minnesota and Wyoming defendants and a Wyoming judge.
- Claims 1–10 concern events in a Minnesota prison; Claims 11–13 involve alleged transfers and conditions in Wyoming and Virginia prisons and a Wyoming judge’s interpretation of habeas laws.
- The district court declined to exercise personal jurisdiction over Minnesota Defendants; Wyoming Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions were granted; Minnesota claims were dismissed without prejudice; Wyoming claims dismissed with prejudice.
- Weldon appealed challenging jurisdiction and the merits, and seeking discovery and potential amendments to the complaint.
- The panel affirmed the district court’s rulings, concluding time bars on Claims 1–10, lack of state-by-state minimum contacts for Minnesota Defendants, failure to state a conspiracy claim for some defendants, and absolute judicial immunity for Claim 13.
- The court left open the possibility that amendment might be futile for some claims, but held Weldon did not establish grounds to proceed further in the current posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Minnesota Defendants | Weldon asserted Wyoming contacts and a contract-based link. | Defendants lacked minimum contacts with Wyoming; contract alone insufficient. | Wyoming lacked personal jurisdiction over Minnesota Defendants. |
| Timeliness of Claims 1–10 | Equitable tolling may apply; actions occurred in 2000 but suit filed 2011. | Equitable tolling not applicable; tolling confined by governing Wyoming law. | Claims 1–10 time-barred. |
| Conspiracy against Minnesota Defendants (Claim 11) | Co-conspirator actions in Wyoming/ Minnesota show retaliation. | Allegations insufficient facts showing agreement and causation. | Claim 11 fails to state a conspiracy claim against named defendants. |
| Claim 12—deliberate indifference in medical care | Virginia officials’ denial of treatment etc. violated Eighth Amendment; liability on Lampert and Gaylor. | Allegations insufficient to show deliberate indifference by Lampert or Gaylor. | Claim 12 fails to state a constitutional violation against Lampert or Gaylor. |
| Claim 13—judicial immunity and Ex parte Young | Judge Arnold’s habeas construction violated federal rights and seeks prospective relief. | Judicial immunity protects official capacity damages; no ongoing federal violation shown for Ex parte Young. | Dismissal upheld; no Ex parte Young exception; official-capacity claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, 511 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2007) (necessity of minimum contacts for jurisdiction; conspiracy theory limits)
- Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (Wyoming–Minnesota contact contract does not establish personal jurisdiction)
- Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) (need specific facts showing agreement and concerted action in conspiracy claims)
- Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2010) (equitable tolling considerations in §1983 claims; whether tolled period applies)