Padilla v. Nazi, No. 15-2137 (10th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 14, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court ERIK PADILLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEE NAZI; REAGAN ESPINOZA; AMENS NAZIS; PATRICK PADILLA; ST. MATTHEWS BLONDE WOMAN; SHAWN LAMBERT, No. 15-2137 (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00515-RB-KBM) (D.N.M.) Defendants - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. Erik Padilla appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and asks this court to remand the case to a different judge and allow him to amend. We do not see how we can. As the district court thoughtfully explained in a series of orders, Mr. Padilla has put forth only conclusory allegations and fails to allege * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 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 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. any legal error in the dismissal of his complaint. We reach the same conclusion after reviewing his appeal. The district court’s order is affirmed, the remainder of the appeal is dismissed, and Mr. Padilla’s in forma pauperis motion is denied. He is reminded that he is obliged to pay the filing fee in full. ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.