Van Horn v. Salvation Army

── Van Horn v. Salvation Army ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-3126 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CHRISTOPHER A. VANHORN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-3126 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-02009-DDC-ADM) SALVATION ARMY; BLANCHE (D. Kan.) RIDING; KELLY F. KELLER; MEGAN BROWN, in her individual and official capacity; GREGORY BARNETT, in his individual and official capacity; TANNER EDDINGS, in his individual and official capacity; CHAD HODGE, in his individual and official capacity; DAVID MARTIN, in his individual and official capacity; KEITH DRILL, in his individual and official capacity; CITY OF MISSION, KANSAS, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.  Appellate Case: 24-3126 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 2 Appellant Christopher VanHorn was involved in an altercation at a Salvation Army store that led to state court convictions of disorderly conduct and criminal trespass. Based on these events, Mr. VanHorn filed a federal lawsuit against numerous defendants alleging claims under federal civil rights laws and state law. 1 The district court dismissed the federal claims without prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background 2 A. State Court Proceedings In January 2022, Mr. VanHorn entered a Salvation Army store in Mission, Kansas. One of the store employees, Appellee Kelly Keller, asked Mr. VanHorn to wear a face mask. Mr. VanHorn refused, saying that Ms. Keller could not force him to wear a mask. He then took out his cell phone and started video recording. Because Mr. VanHorn declined to put on a mask, Ms. Keller asked him to leave. She explained it was the store’s policy that those inside must wear a mask. Mr. VanHorn did not leave; he engaged with other patrons in the store and continued recording. He asked Ms. Keller why he could not shop at the store, and she Because Mr. VanHorn is a pro se litigant, we construe his pleadings liberally 1 but do not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). 2 We take these facts from the Amended Complaint, see R. vol. II at 127-67, and the district court order’s undisputed recitation, see id. at 397-403. We cite the district court order in the appellate recor