Opinion
No. 10-3199.
April 19, 2011.
Jose Del Real, Wichita, KS, pro se.
David Clay Britton, Esq., Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MURPHY and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
Jose Del Real, proceeding pro se here as in the district court, claims his rights were violated in his state court criminal trial. He says he was not allowed to present documents or to fully cross-examine two witnesses, and that one witness testified falsely. He asks us to reverse his conviction or grant him a new criminal trial. The district court dismissed his case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (6). In particular, it held that (1) Mr. Del Real's claims, apparently based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, could not be brought against the State of Kansas because the state is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983; (2) the Eleventh Amendment barred his claims; (3) the complaint was too vague to state a claim; and (4) the federal court was without subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
Giving Mr. Del Real's pro se filings the solicitous consideration they are due, and reviewing the district court's dismissal order de novo, see Kane Cnty. Utah v. Salazar, 562 F.3d 1077, 1085 (10th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) (6)), we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's order of dismissal for substantially the same reasons the district court gave in its thorough order entered July 27, 2010.