Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03160/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03160-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lonnie Farris
Appellant
Garden City, Kansas
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

LONNIE FARRIS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

GARDEN CITY, KANSAS, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-3160 

(D.C. No. 6:15-CV-01078-MLB-KMH) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Lonnie Farris appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure 

to state a claim. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. 

Representing himself, Farris initially sued the city of Garden City for violating 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Farris then amended his complaint to allege 

conspiracy and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2385, a federal criminal statute. The district 

 *

 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

February 9, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3160 Document: 01019567936 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 1 
2 

court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for failure to state a claim. 

Farris appeals.1 

We review a district court’s Rule 12(c) dismissal de novo, using the same 

standard that applies to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Myers v. Koopman, 738 F.3d 

1190, 1193 (10th Cir. 2013). Because Farris proceeds pro se, we liberally construe 

his brief and apply a more forgiving standard than the one we apply to attorneydrafted filings. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 

(10th Cir. 2005). But a pro se party must follow the same procedural rules that 

govern other litigants. And we won’t act as Farris’ advocate by formulating 

arguments or scouring the record on his behalf. See id.

Here, the district court dismissed Farris’ ADA claim because it concluded his 

complaint failed to sufficiently allege that Farris is a qualified individual with a 

disability or that he suffered intentional discrimination by reason of his alleged 

 1

 Preliminarily, we address two pending motions. First, Farris seeks relief 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), which extends the time to file an appeal if a 

party timely files a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion in district court. We deny the motion as 

moot because Farris timely filed his notice of appeal and he needs no extension of 

time. To the extent this filing can be construed as a motion to reconsider under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60, we deny the motion because the district court—not this court—is the 

proper forum for such a motion. Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 889 

(4th Cir. 1999). 

Second, Farris filed a “Motion for Exemptions From 10th Cir. R. 30.1(D)(5) 

page limit for volumes and 10th Cir. R. 32(a) Font sizes in Briefs.” To the extent 

Farris seeks permission to file an appendix in this appeal, we deny his request. See

10th Cir. R. 30.1 (“In pro se appeals, the district court clerk prepares a pro se 

record.”); 10th Cir. R. 30.2(B) (“No other appendix may be filed except by order of 

the court.”). But we grant Farris’ request for an exemption from 10th Cir. R. 32(a). 

Appellate Case: 15-3160 Document: 01019567936 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 2 
3 

disability. As for the conspiracy claim, the district court concluded Farris failed to 

sufficiently identify either the individuals involved in the alleged conspiracy or the 

agreement they allegedly entered into. Finally, the district court dismissed Farris’ 18 

U.S.C. § 2385 claim, concluding § 2385 is a criminal statute that doesn’t provide for 

a private cause of action. 

In his opening brief,2

 Farris doesn’t specifically attack any of the district 

court’s conclusions. Instead, he generally alleges the district court erred by ignoring 

certain supporting documents in reaching those conclusions. But the district court 

explicitly acknowledged Farris’ supporting documents before dismissing his claims. 

And even assuming the district court failed to fully evaluate those documents, Farris 

doesn’t explain how that alleged error impacted the district court’s ultimate decision. 

Thus, we won’t reverse on this basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111 (requiring court to 

disregard “errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties”); 

Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 410 (2009) (explaining that “party seeking 

reversal normally must explain why the erroneous ruling caused harm”). 

While Farris’ opening brief purports to advance several additional arguments, 

none of them attack the bases for the district court’s order of dismissal. Such 

generalized assertions of error are insufficient to “place [the district court’s] rulings 

 2

 To the extent we construe points that Farris makes for the first time in his 

reply brief as challenges to the district court’s ruling, these arguments come too late. 

We therefore decline to consider them. See Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270, 1274 

(10th Cir. 2011). 

Appellate Case: 15-3160 Document: 01019567936 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 3 
4 

at issue” on appeal. See United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162, 1195 (10th Cir. 

2006) (declining to consider arguments because appellant failed to provide “detailed 

explanation of how the district court erred”). Accordingly, we decline to address 

those arguments. 

We affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-3160 Document: 01019567936 Date Filed: 02/09/2016 Page: 4