UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ IKEM HARLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. KANSAS CITY, KANSAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee. No. 21-3207 (D.C. No. 2:21-CV -02060-EFM-JPO) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before PHILLIPS , MURPHY , and EID , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Plaintiff-Appellant Ikem Harland filed suit in the District of Kansas against the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department (“the Police De partment”), alleging false arrest and abuse while he was incarcerated. Harland struggled to comply with the district court’s orders to file an amended complaint and provide sufficient information to issue summonses. Ultimately, the Police Department moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim upon which re lief can be granted, as

* This order and judgment is not bi nding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is 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. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 15, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 12 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion. Harland now appeals the district cour t’s grant of the Police Depart ment’s motion to dismiss. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. On February 3, 2021, Harland filed suit pro se against the Police Department asserting that he was “[a]rrested on false charges and spent 7 month[s] in jail getting abused.” R. at 9. Harland also requested appointment of counsel. The court denied the motion for appoint ment of counsel a nd ordered Harland to show “why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id. at 13. In the order, the court noted that “[ Harland] hasn’t offered any basis for federal-court juri sdiction” and failed to state when [he] was arrested, by which offi cer(s) he was arrested, for what he was supposedly arrested, what facts s upport [his] contention that he was arrested on false charges, what the status or outcome of those charges might be, or how, when, and by whom [he] allegedly was abused in jail after he was arrested. Id. at 17–18. To show cause, Harland filed a respons e with additional facts regarding his May 2, 2019, arrest and complaints of a buse during imprisonment. Harland provided the date of his arrest but failed to in clude dates accompanying his allegations and failed to associate causes of action with these allegations. The court found these facts sufficient to demonstrate Harland “m ay be stating a claim of civil rights violations” under 42 U.S. C. § 1983 and did not dismiss his case. Id. at 22. The court Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 23 then requested that Harland file a noti ce naming his defendants, and the specific causes of action against them. In response, Harland sent the court a list of police officers’ names designated as defendants, alleging that they “mad e [a] fake video and sign[ed] the witness
statement.” Id. at 25. Harland also included a li st of correctiona l officers’ names designated as defendants, alleging that th ey had abused him by “feeding [him] a sack lunch three times a day for a month and a half”; causing “[b]odily harm”; “using psychological warfare tactic s”; and “put[ting] a false charge of a stabbing selfdefense,” which placed Ha rland in isolation. Id. The court then directed Harland to file an amended complaint that listed e ach defendant in the complaint’s caption, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and request ed that Harland set forth what each named defendant did that Harl and contends gives rise to his claims. Harland failed to file an amended co mplaint and instead sent the court a “response” stating that he ha d subpoenaed a correctional officer but not yet received an answer. Harland did not identify the corr ectional officer he al legedly subpoenaed. The court extended Harland’s deadline to fi le the amended complaint to April 2, 2021, and requested that he designate any unidentified defendant as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in the complain t’s caption, along with th e unidentified defendants’ conduct that led to his claims. Id. at 29–30. Harland filed an amended complaint, in which he listed thirteen paragraphs of allegations against several J ohn and Jane Does. The cour t then ordered Harland to provide addresses for all defendants by April 20, 2021, in order to prepare the Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 34 appropriate summonses, but Harland failed to respond with addresses for the John and Jane Doe defendants by th at date. As a result, the court did not add the unidentified defendants as part ies to the case and retained the Police Department as the only defendant. In response to Harland’s complaint, th e Police Department filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that, pursuant to Rule 12( b), (1) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; (2) Harland failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; (3) Harland provided insufficien t process; and (4) Harland provided insufficient service of process. Harla nd responded to the motion by renewing his allegations from previous f ilings and again included the list of individuals he designated as defendants. The court granted the Police Departme nt’s motion and dismissed Harland’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because his “pl eadings [did] not asse rt the circumstances surrounding the false charges or provide any factual basis tying the Police Department or its employees to the misconduct,” and he fail ed to “provide any detail regarding the dates or circumstances” of the alleged “tortious conduct by various John and Jane Does.” Id. at 51. Harland timely appealed the order gran ting the Police Department’s motion to dismiss.
II. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Albers v. Bd. Of Cty. Comm’rs of Jefferson Cty., Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 45 Colo. , 771 F.3d 697, 700 ( 10th Cir. 2014). At the motion to dismiss stag e, we accept the non-movant’s well-pleaded a llegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to him. Warnick v. Cooley , 895 F.3d 743, 750–51 (10th Cir. 2018). Although we construe Harland’s pro se pleadings liber ally, “the court cannot take on the responsibility of servi ng as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th Cir. 1991)). Pro se litigants must still “follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Id. (quoting Nielson v. Price , 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10t h Cir. 1994)).
III. On appeal, Harland contends that the district court erre d in dismissing his complaint because (1) the Po lice Department “[made] a fake video of someone in [Harland’s] clothing running from the cops”; (2) the discovery “shows [the police] blowing out [Harland’s] wheel tire on Minn esota [Street]” and without a back wheel, he could not have been “able to make it [to] that house” where he was arrested; and (3) the district court misapplied the law a nd should have taken no tice of the “officer misconduct” and “filling out a false statemen t” claims. Aplt. Br. at 3–4. Harland also asserts on appeal that he “never got [h is] day in court” and the district court’s judgment was motivated by “trying to protect their own.” Id . at 4. Harland failed to raise any of these arguments in respons e to the Police Department’s motion to dismiss, and therefore they are not preser ved for appellate review and are waived. See Impact Energy Res., LLC v. Salazar , 693 F.3d 1239, 1246 n.3 (10th Cir. 2012) Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 56 (explaining that failure to rais e issues in district court at the appropriate time waives appellate review). Therefore, we will only review whether Harland successfully stated a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Despite liberally construing Harland’s filings and assumi ng he intended to bring a § 1983 claim and a common law clai m for false arrest under Kansas law, we find that Harland has failed to state a claim. To surv ive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Harland’s “complaint must contain enough allegati ons of fact, taken as true, ‘to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Khalik v. United Air Lines , 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10t h Cir. 2012) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Harla nd’s factual allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculativ e level” and he must fram e the complaint “with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest” that he is entitled to relief. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555–56. He has not succeeded in doing so. Harland’s complaint fails to recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, namely the “who, what, and when s upporting his claims for relief.” Barnes v. N.M. Dep’t of Corr. , No. 21-2095, 2022 WL 2189548, at *2 (10th Cir. June 17, 2022) (unpublished). 1 In the Statement of the Claim sec tion of the district court’s pro se civil complaint form, Harland wa s instructed to “[s]tate wh at each defendant did that violated the right(s) of the plaintiff, incl uding dates and places of such conduct by the defendant(s).” R. at 9. In this section, Harland simply wr ote that he “was arrested on

1 Unpublished cases are not binding preceden t, but we consider them for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32. 1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 67 false charges and spent 7 months in jail getting abused.” Id. (cleaned up). Harland failed to provide sufficient fa cts to tie specific individual s to his allegations that the Police Department falsely char ged him or that the correct ional officers abused him while imprisoned, and fail ed to provide any dates for these allegations. In the Relief section, Harland wrote that he wanted “the c ops to get in trouble and money for [his] pain and suffery [sic].” Id. at 10. He also claimed actual damages and punitive damages and was instru cted to “state the amounts claimed and the reasons you claim you are entitled to recover moneta ry damages,” but Harland simply wrote “1 million dollars” and did no t include any reasons he may be entitled to recover that amount. Id. Even after multiple attempts by the court to assist Harland in filing a sufficient complaint, he failed to set forth his claims. Harland also asserts on appeal that the c ourt failed to take notice of his claims of “officer misconduct” and “filling out a fals e statement.” Aplt. Br. at 3–4. But the court did take notice of these arguments, a nd it determined that Harland’s pleadings did not “provide any factual basis tying the Police Department or its employees to the misconduct in jail” and “do not assert circ umstances surrounding th e false charges.” R. at 51. We agree. Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 78 IV. Because Harland failed to allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, his complaint must be dismissed. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Entered for the Court

Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 21-3207 Document: 010110711352 Date Filed: 07/15/2022 Page: 8