FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 19, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
DJUAN PRESTON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 20-6059
(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-00139-SLP)
NORM RUSSELL, Kiowa County (W.D. Okla.)
Courthouse Official; RICK MARSH,
Kiowa County Courthouse Official; CRIS
SANDERS, Kiowa County Courthouse
Official; BILL LANCASTER, Kiowa
County Sheriff’s Office Official; BRYNN
BARNETT, Kiowa County Sheriff’s Office
Official; DEREK EARLS, Kiowa County
Sheriff’s Office Official; MISTY NORRIS,
Kiowa County Sheriff’s Office Official;
JIM HINES, Oklahoma Indigent Defense
System; JEFFREY WOLFIENBARGER,
Oklahoma Indigent Defense System;
TERRY TYLER, Oklahoma Indigent
Defense System; GRANT SHEPERD,
Goza, Chatman and Washington Attorney,
Lawton, Oklahoma Office; WILLIE
SHAW, Hobart Police Department, Former
Officer; CITY OF HOBART, Kiowa
County; OSBI; STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Djuan Preston Williams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
judgment dismissing an action he brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Williams’s action arises from his arrest and detention in the Kiowa County
Jail. He named various state and local defendants, including the judge that presided
over his ensuing criminal trial, and a private attorney. He asserted that defendants
violated his civil rights in numerous ways. He sought damages and exoneration and
expungement of his criminal conviction and associated fines and restitution.
All defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the district court granted. The
court granted Judge Norm Russell’s motion based on absolute judicial immunity.
The court granted the other motions to dismiss for failure to timely effect service or
for failure to state a claim for relief. Regarding the latter ground for dismissal, the
court explained that claims against the State of Oklahoma and certain individual
defendants named only in their official capacities were not cognizable under § 1983
because with respect to claims for damages, “neither a State nor its officials acting in
their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). The court also concluded that the claims against the
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
2
State were barred in certain respects by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
The court further determined that Williams failed to plead facts supporting plausible
claims against some defendants, including that any claim for injunctive relief against
assistant district attorney Rick Marsh or the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
was implausible because neither one had the power to exonerate or expunge his
sentence. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law
claims Williams may have asserted.
Williams appeals, but in his appellate brief, he fails to advance any cogent
argument that the district court erred in any of its rulings. While most of his brief
discusses matters irrelevant to this appeal, he does make a number of conclusory
statements regarding this case, including that “the State of Oklahoma violated the
Constitution and everything it stands for,” Aplt. Opening Br. at 1; the district court
“made decision[s] based off not the weight of all the evidence, but by self opinion,
and abuse of authoritative position,” id. at 4; and the district court incorrectly decided
facts in “all briefs and supporting facts of [the] case,” id. at 5. He also reiterates his
request for damages and injunctive relief. See id. at 3. But he fails to develop any
argument, to meaningfully cite the record, or to offer any supporting legal authority.
Even affording Williams’s brief and other pro se filings the liberal
construction to which they are entitled, see Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005), his efforts are wholly insufficient to garner
appellate review. We have “repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Id. (internal quotation marks
3
omitted). To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must adequately brief it, beyond a
generalized assertion of error, and include citations to the record and supporting
authority. Id. at 841. “[C]onclusory allegations with no citations to the record or any
legal authority for support” are insufficient. Id.
Williams’s brief is inadequate in these respects, and we “cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the
record,” id. at 840. Therefore, despite his pro se status, he has waived appellate
review. See id. at 841. Nonetheless, we have discretion to consider his appeal. See
id. And after independently reviewing the record, we affirm the district court’s
judgment for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s orders of
August 13, 2019 (ECF No. 21); April 14, 2020 (ECF No. 50); and April 21, 2020
(ECF No. 52).
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
4