UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MARKEITH D. TUCKER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ELK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

OKLAHOMA MUNICIPAL 

ASSURANCE GROUP (OMAG); 

ROBERSON KOLKER COOPER 

GOERES PC; PROGRESSIVE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 22-6023 

(D. C. No. 5:21-CV-311-SLP) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

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

_________________________________ 

Markeith D. Tucker, a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis, filed 

claims against various defendants regarding a motor vehicle accident, which took 

place on July 9, 2020. The district court dismissed the case upon initial screening 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 after finding that Tucker’s complaint was frivolous and 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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. ** 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 16, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6023 Document: 010110697947 Date Filed: 06/16/2022 Page: 1
2 

failed to state a claim. To the extent the complaint asserted claims under 34 U.S.C. 

§ 12601 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 249, the district court dismissed them with 

prejudice. Tucker now appeals. 

A § 1915(d) dismissal may be sua sponte when “on the face of the complaint it 

clearly appears that the action is frivolous or malicious.” Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 

F.2d 852, 854 (10th Cir. 1981). A complaint is “frivolous” if “it lacks an arguable 

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A 

complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Because Tucker is pro 

se, we construe his allegations liberally, however, we will not “assume the role of 

advocate.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

In this case, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for substantially the same 

reasons as provided in the district court’s order. Tucker’s complaint invokes 34 

U.S.C. § 12601 as well as 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 249. His brief on appeal also 

invokes 18 U.S.C. § 241. In connection with these statutes, we have previously 

upheld a district court’s dismissal of similar claims in another case brought by 

Tucker: 

[T]hese statutes do not afford Tucker a private right of action. Section 

12601 affords enforcement only to the Attorney General. See 34 U.S.C. 

§ 12601(b) (“Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to 

believe that a violation of paragraph [(a)] has occurred, the Attorney 

General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action 

obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern 

or practice.”). Sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that do not 

provide for private civil causes of action. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 

410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973) (“[A] private 

Appellate Case: 22-6023 Document: 010110697947 Date Filed: 06/16/2022 Page: 2
3 

citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or 

nonprosecution of another.”); Henry v. Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 49 F. 

App’x 272, 273 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (recognizing that it is 

“settled law” that §§ 241 and 242, “like other such statutes, do not provide 

for a private civil cause of action” (citations omitted)). Thus, with no 

“arguable claim for relief” this complaint is frivolous and fails to state a 

claim. 

Tucker v. U.S. Ct. of Appeals for Tenth Cir., 815 F. App’x 292, 294 (10th Cir. 2020) 

(alterations in original).1

 This analysis applies equally here. Overall, examining the 

appeal, complaint, and supplemental briefing, Tucker’s claims involve conclusory 

allegations without legitimate argument or supporting factual allegations.2

 

Accordingly, the district court correctly found that the claims were frivolous and that 

his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

The complaint also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 

“a party must show that complete diversity of citizenship exists between the adverse 

parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Symes v. Harris, 472 

F.3d 754, 758 (10th Cir. 2006). In his complaint, Tucker names the following 

defendants: Elk City Police Department; Roberson Kolker Cooper Goeres, P.C.; 

Progressive Insurance; and Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group (“OMAG”). 

Under the complaint’s “jurisdiction” section, Tucker writes “U.S. Government 

1

 Although not precedential, we find the discussion in Tucker to be instructive. 

See 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (“Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited 

for their persuasive value.”); see also Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. 

2

 In his appellate brief, Tucker also claims that one or more of the defendants 

committed “Obstruction of Justice” by “Making false statements to officials,” and 

also that they “violated” the “Fourth Amendment.” Aplt. Br. at 3. But Tucker fails 

to elaborate on these claims or provide any indication that he is entitled to relief. 

Appellate Case: 22-6023 Document: 010110697947 Date Filed: 06/16/2022 Page: 3
4 

Plaintiff” along with his name. R. at 5. Tucker is a citizen of Oklahoma. As alleged, 

the citizenship of Elk City Police Department and OMAG is also Oklahoma. Tucker 

fails to allege the citizenship of the other defendants. Thus, we find that the district 

court properly found the complaint lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Grynberg v. 

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015). 

In conclusion, we affirm the dismissal of Tucker’s complaint. The complaint 

clearly lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. On its face, it fails to allege 

enough facts to state a plausible claim to relief. It also lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction. Thus, the district court properly dismissed Tucker’s complaint. 

Additionally, Tucker’s motion to expedite is denied as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Allison H. Eid 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-6023 Document: 010110697947 Date Filed: 06/16/2022 Page: 4