UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

WASHINGTON KIM, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

BARACK OBAMA; UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 15-6118 

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-00607-F) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Washington Kim appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). 

Because we conclude Kim has forfeited appellate review, we affirm. 

 On June 2, 2015, Kim—who says he is a nuclear specialist for the United States 

Army—filed a complaint in federal district court. Kim’s allegations arise from his 

treatment during basic training and the Army’s subsequent refusal to “approve [his] 

graduation.” Complaint, Doc. 1, at 2. 

																																																								 *

 After examining Kim’s brief and the 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court
2 

The district court dismissed Kim’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Specifically, the district court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), which 

require courts to dismiss IFP actions that are frivolous or fail to state a claim. Kim 

appealed. 

Because Kim proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his brief and apply a more 

forgiving standard than the one we apply to attorney-drafted filings. Garrett v. Selby 

Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But pro se parties must 

follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Thus, we won’t act as Kim’s 

advocate by formulating arguments or scouring the record on his behalf. Id. 

In his opening brief, Kim argues the district court made both factual and legal 

errors in dismissing his complaint. But Kim offers neither legal authority nor citations to 

the portions of the record that might support his arguments. See Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(8)(A) (requiring appellant’s brief to include “citations to the authorities and parts of 

the record on which the appellant relies”). Thus, we decline to address them. See Bronson 

v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting we routinely refuse to consider 

arguments that fail to meet Rule 28’s requirements). 

Because Kim has forfeited appellate review by failing to comply with the 

applicable procedural rules, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. 

Entered for the Court, 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge