JONES v. HEATON (2019)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Plaintiff-Appellant Alberta Rose Josephine Jones appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her complaint naming two federal judges, three state-court judges, a court employee, and various law enforcement officials. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on initial screening and prior to service on defendants. After reviewing the complaint, the district court concluded it was frivolous and amendment would be futile. Jones v. Heaton, No. 5:18-cv-01220-R, 2019 WL 386207, at *4 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 30, 2019). Ms. Jones is a frequent litigant; in this case her complaint is that defendants violated her right to due process, particularly in connection with her state-court divorce proceedings which she characterizes as fraudulent and inequitable.

We review a district court’s determination that a complaint fails to state a claim de novo. Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir. 2007). Rule 12(b)(6) is an “important mechanism for weeding out meritless claims.” Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409, 425, 134 S.Ct. 2459, 189 L.Ed.2d 457 (2014). For the reasons stated by the district court, Ms. Jones’s complaint lacks facial plausibility that would create a reasonable inference that any defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, let alone that a federal court could order the relief requested. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). The district properly dismissed the complaint after giving it its mandated liberal construction.

AFFIRMED.

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge