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 defe ndants regarding a motor ve hicle accident, which took place on July 9, 2020. The district c ourt dismissed the cas e upon initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 after finding that Tucker’s complaint was frivolous and

* 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 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. 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: 12 failed to state a claim. To the extent the complaint asse rted claims under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 249, the district c ourt 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 (10t h Cir. 1981). A complaint is “fri volous” 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 f acts to state a claim to reli ef 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 “a ssume the role of

advocate.” Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In this case, we affirm th e district court’s dismissal for substantially the same reasons as provided in the di strict court’s order. Tu cker’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 wi th these statutes, we have previously upheld a district court’s dismissal of similar claims in a nother 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 reas onable cause to believe that a violati on of paragraph [(a)] has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of th e United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitabl e 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: 23 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) (unpubl ished) (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 equall y here. Overall, examining the appeal, complaint, and suppl emental briefing, Tucker’s claims involve conclusory allegations without legitimate argumen t or supporting fa ctual allegations. 2 Accordingly, the district cour t correctly found that the cl aims were frivolous and that his complaint failed to state a clai m upon which relief may be granted. The complaint also lacks s ubject 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 Poli ce Department; Roberson Kolk er Cooper Goeres, P.C.; Progressive Insurance; and Oklahoma Municipal Assurance Group (“OMAG”). Under the complaint’s “jurisdiction” se ction, 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 cl aims that one or more of the defendants committed “Obstruction of Justice” by “Maki ng false statements to officials,” and also that they “violated” th e “Fourth Amendment.” Aplt. Br . at 3. But Tucker fails to elaborate on these claims or provide a ny indication that he is entitled to relief. Appellate Case: 22-6023 Document: 010110697947 Date Filed: 06/16/2022 Page: 34 Plaintiff” along with his name. R. at 5. Tucker is a citizen of Oklaho ma. As alleged, the citizenship of Elk City Police Department and OMAG is also Oklahoma. Tucker fails to allege the ci tizenship of the other defendants. Thus, we find that the district court properly found the complaint la cks 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 e ither in law or in fact. On its face, it fails to allege enough facts to state a plausi ble claim to relief. It also lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the district court pr operly 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