BORDOCK v. ARROWHEAD MALL, 389 Fed.Appx. 846 (10th Cir. 2010)

LexRoll.com > LexRoll.com (10th Cir.) > Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions > BORDOCK v. ARROWHEAD MALL, 389 Fed.Appx. 846 (10th Cir. 2010)
Laurie BORDOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARROWHEAD MALL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-7045.United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
August 3, 2010.

Page 847

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Ronald A. White, 2010 WL 1999119.

Laurie Bordock, Poteau, OK, pro se.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

[*] The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

CARLOS F. LUCERO, Circuit Judge.

Laurie Bordock appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Exercising jurisdiction under § 1291, we affirm.

Bordock filed a complaint alleging that Arrowhead Mall security violated her civil rights by removing her from the mall because she was homeless. Pursuant to its screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court determined that her complaint was frivolous because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the statute ostensibly giving rise to Bordock’s claim — extends only to violations committed under color of state law See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191, 109 S.Ct. 454, 102 L.Ed.2d 469 (1988). Because the Arrowhead Mall is a private entity, Bordock’s complaint lacked “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

On appeal, Bordock fails to advance any reasoned argument challenging the district court’s reasoning. Observing no error in the district court’s conclusion, we AFFIRM.