UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ AYINDE MOHN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. RYAN ZINKE, Secretary of the Interior; DAVID L. BERN HARDT, Deputy Secretary of the Interior; STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendants - Appellees. No. 17-7052 (D.C. No. 6:16- CV-00473-RAW) (E.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , BALDOCK , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Ayinde Mohn appeals the dismissal of hi s claim to be the beneficiary of an Individual Indian Money (“IIM”) account. Exercising jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 13, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 I Mohn alleges he is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the beneficiary of an IIM account. He claims to be the present beneficiary of the IIM account “derived ultimately fro m income from the individu al land allotments” to his Indian direct lineal grandparents: “Anders on Reese, James Reese, Betsy Reese and Jesse Reese.” He asserts that, despite being conf irmed in 1880 as Native Cherokee, the Reeses were later erroneously desi gnated as Cherokee Freedmen by the Commission of the Five

Civilized Tribes. 1 Mohn claims that because of th at designation, his claim with the

“Cobell v. Salazar—Indian Trust Se ttlement” was erroneously denied. 2 Mohn has raised these same allegations on behalf of himself and others in numerous complaints filed throughout the fe deral district courts in Oklahoma. The district courts have dismissed Mohn’s compla ints on the grounds that he lacked standing to raise other alleged beneficiaries’ rights and that he failed to st ate a claim for relief.

1 The Commission of the Five Civili zed Tribes, commonly known as the Dawes Commission, was created “to ne gotiate with the Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles for th e extinguishment of tr ibal titles to land and the allotment of their lands in severa lty.” Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 425 n.5 (1943).

2 “The class action lawsuit of Cobell v. Salazar, 96-CV-1285 (D.D.C.), settled in 2009 pursuant to a court-approved settleme nt known as the Indi an Trust Settlement . . . settles class claims a lleging the federal government violated trust duties to individual Indian trust benefi ciaries by [1] failing to pr ovide proper accountings, [2] mismanaging [IIM] accounts, and [3] mismanaging land a nd other resources.” Mohn v. Jewell, No. 16-CV-460-TCK-TLW, 2016 WL 7223388, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 13, 2016) (unpublished), aff’d, Mohn v. Zi nke, 688 F. App’x 55 4 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). (“Mohn I”)3 In this case, the district court grante d the defendants’ motion to dismiss for the

reasons it had identified in an order dismissi ng Mohn’s claims in another case. In Mohn v. Jewell, No. CIV-16-291-RAW (E.D. Okla. July 31, 2017), the district court concluded that Mohn lacked standing to assert claims either (1) on behalf of Blanche Youngblood Collins or Reedy Jones, or (2) through any of his ancestors. Alternatively, the district court stated that Mohn had failed to allege a plausible claim for relief. As to both standing and failure to state a claim, the district court relied on reasoning from Mohn I, 688 F. App’x 554. In Mohn I, we held that (1) Mohn lacked standing to pursue IIM account funds on an heir theory; (2) Mohn had unsuccessfu lly sought funds under the Indian Trust

Settlement and did not opt out of the settlement; (3) th e documents attached to Mohn’s complaint failed to show th at the Reeses were Native Cherokee; and (4) Mohn’s own submissions belied his allegation that he ha d any existing IIM account of his own, which he could have used for a separate claim. Id. at 556-57; see also Mohn, 2016 WL 7223388, at *4-6.

II On appeal, Mohn does not appear to be seeking IIM account funds for, or through, any unrelated individuals. 3 But like his other cases, he seems to be seeking funds through his grandparents—the Reeses. We have alre ady determined that Mohn lacks standing and has failed to allege a plausible claim for recovering IIM acco unt funds through the

3 Because Mohn is pro se, we hold his pl eadings to “a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” but do not “assume th e role of advocate for” him. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).4 Reeses or individually. See Mohn I, 688 F. Ap p’x at 557. Thus, his “instant attempt to raise these same arguments fails yet again, whether based on res judicata, precedent, or both.” Fogle v. Gonzales, 597 F. App’x 485, 48 8 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished); see also Pyle v. Woods, 874 F.3d 1 257, 1267 (10th Cir. 2017) (“The courts of appeals are not second-chance forums where litigants, wh ose appellate arguments are deemed unavailing, are given the opportunity to relitigate their case s in ways previously available to them.”). Although Mohn might have clarified the scope of the claims at is sue in this appeal, his appellate brief merely repeats the alle gations of his compla int by recounting the

historical narrative of Cherokee Natives an d Freedmen. Critically, Mohn’s appellate brief fails to acknowledge—let alone contest—the district court’s rulings that he lacks standing and has failed to state a plausible cl aim for relief. Even though Mohn is pro se, we cannot “construct[] arguments and search[] the record” on his behalf. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). We hold that Mohn is barred from relitigat ing the challenges this court rejected in Mohn I, and he has not pr eserved any issues for review. We affirm.

Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge