Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In Re Dontray L. Brown, Petitioner

Appellate Case: 25-3000

Document: 9-1

Date Filed: 02/11/2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Page: 1

FILED

United States Court of Appea

Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

February 11, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

DONTRAY L. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRENDA K. STOSS; PAUL J.

HICKMAN; JACOB E. PETERSON;

JARED B. JOHNSON; JOHN A.

REYNOLDS; ELLEN M. TURNER;

SCOTT REED; JOHN OR JANE DOE;

ANDREA SWISHER; AMY NORTON;

(FNU) YATES; (FNU) GARCIA;

ANTHONY BUKATY,

No. 25-3000

(D.C. No. 5:24-CV-03109-JWL)

(D. Kan.)

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 25-3000

Document: 9-1

Date Filed: 02/11/2025

Page: 2

Dontray Brown appeals from an order of the district court dismissing his

second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. In a set of thorough and

patient orders, the district court identified legal flaws in Brown’s original and first

amended complaints and gave Brown opportunities to state valid legal claims. See

Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 11 (entered July 24, 2024); Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 16 (entered Nov. 25,

2024). When Brown’s second amended complaint failed to correct the identified

errors, the district court dismissed Brown’s action for failure to state a claim. See

Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 23 (entered Dec. 23, 2024). The district court concluded the

defendant state-court judges were entitled to absolute immunity because the second

amended complaint failed to plausibly allege any judge acted clearly without any

colorable claim of jurisdiction. See Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 23, at 2; see also Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). It further concluded Brown’s second

amended complaint failed to plausibly allege that any of the private individual

defendants identified in the complaint acted under color of state law. See Dist. Ct.

Dkt. No. 23, at 2-3 See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Finally, the district

court ruled that each of Brown’s § 1983-based challenges to the validity of his statecourt convictions and detentions, including those seeking monetary damages, was

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994). See Dist. Ct. Dkt. No. 23,

at 3-5.

Brown’s appellate brief fails to meaningfully address the district court’s

thorough legal reasoning. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require all

appellants to provide an argument containing the “appellant’s contentions and the

2

Appellate Case: 25-3000

Document: 9-1

Date Filed: 02/11/2025

Page: 3

reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the

appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Rule 28 “applies equally to pro se

litigants,” and requires “more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to

supporting authority.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841

(10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “[W]hen a pro se litigant fails to comply with

[Rule 28], [this court] cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the

necessary legal research.” Id. (quotation omitted). Brown’s appellate brief makes no

mention of absolute judicial immunity, the requirement for state action, or Heck. By

failing to grapple with the legal bases upon which the district court dismissed his

complaint, Brown has waived appellate review.

This court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRMS

the district court’s order of dismissal.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

3

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.