Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-07067/USCOURTS-ca10-14-07067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Baptist Churches
Appellee
Bacone Christian College
Appellee
Shameka Banks
Appellant
Timothy Johnson
Appellant
Carol Jones
Appellant
Muskogee Regional Medical Center
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SHAMEKA BANKS; TIMOTHY

JOHNSON; CAROL JONES, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES;

BACONE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE;

MUSKOGEE REGIONAL MEDICAL

CENTER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-7067

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00100-RAW)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

While attending Bacone Christian College, Timothy Johnson was sent to

Muskogee Regional Medical Center to undergo psychiatric treatment. No one

contacted Mr. Johnson’s mother, Shameka Banks, or his grandmother, Carol

Jones. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Banks, and Ms. Jones allege that Bacone, MRMC, and

*

 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) and 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order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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: 14-7067 Document: 01019379939 Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Page: 1 
American Baptist Churches should’ve notified the family about Mr. Johnson’s

hospitalization. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a

claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 570 (2007). 

On appeal, the family members insist their case is strong but do not directly

address any of the dispositive problems the district court identified in their

pleadings, let alone point out any defects in that court’s judgment. While this

court takes seriously its obligation to construe liberally pro se filings like those

here, it will not invent arguments for reversal that a litigant does not even touch

upon. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th

Cir. 2005). This court “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the

litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. Pro

se litigants, moreover, are not excused from following the same rules of

procedure that govern other litigants. Id. The family members’ briefs don’t come

close to complying with Fed. R. App. P. 28 — the rule governing the form and

content of appellate briefs. The briefs fail to list any issues for appeal, don’t

explain why the court erred in dismissing their claims, and lack any citations to

authority whatsoever. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 14-7067 Document: 01019379939 Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Page: 2 
The judgment is affirmed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

.

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 14-7067 Document: 01019379939 Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Page: 3