UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GLEN A. PONTIOUS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 22-6073 

(D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00088-G) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 In this challenge to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, Glen A. Pontious appeals 

pro se from a district court order dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

 In an amended complaint filed in federal district court in 2021, Mr. Pontious 

claimed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was “derelict in [its] duties” for “allow[ing] 

Joe Biden to run for office,” given “[a]pperent [sic] high crimes and misdeanors’s [sic], 

* 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. 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 26, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6073 Document: 010110804134 Date Filed: 01/26/2023 Page: 1
2 

conflict of interest[.]” R. at 28 (capitalization omitted). He alleged it was “not fair . . . 

that [former President Donald Trump] was interfeared [sic] with by . . . frivolous 

impeachment.” R. at 31 (capitalization omitted). For relief, he sought $48 million in 

damages and to “remove the Current U.S. Presidential administration via nullification 

and voiding the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and criminaly [sic] prosecute those who 

brought the fraudlent [sic] charges against President Donald Trump.” R. at 36 

(capitalization omitted). 

 On the DOJ’s motion, the district court dismissed the amended complaint because 

Mr. Pontious failed to identify a waiver of the DOJ’s immunity from suit. See Normandy 

Apartments, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir. 

2009) (“Sovereign immunity generally shields the United States, its agencies, and its 

officers acting in their official capacity from suit.”). 

 Mr. Pontious appealed and filed motions in this court asserting, among other 

things, that the DOJ is “supporting and aiding in treason by sedition,” Mot. for 

Emergency Hr’g at 1 (filed Aug. 12, 2022) (capitalization omitted), and has conspired 

with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to commit “Treason[] and Mutiny[] against 

President Donald J Trump,” Mot. at 3 (filed Sept. 9, 2022). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standards of Review 

 “We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on sovereign immunity.” 

Mojsilovic v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Univ. of Okla., 841 F.3d 1129, 1131 

(10th Cir. 2016). Because Mr. Pontius proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments 

liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in 

Appellate Case: 22-6073 Document: 010110804134 Date Filed: 01/26/2023 Page: 2
3 

constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & 

Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 

II. Sovereign Immunity 

 “The defense of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, depriving courts of 

subject-matter jurisdiction where applicable.” Normandy Apartments, 554 F.3d at 1295. 

Thus, the party seeking to assert a claim against the government must identify a specific 

waiver of sovereign immunity to establish jurisdiction. See id. The waiver “must be 

unequivocally expressed in statutory text and will not be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518 

U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citation omitted). 

 Like the district court, we can find no reference in Mr. Pontius’s amended 

complaint either to the DOJ’s immunity or to any statute capable of waiving that 

immunity. In his district court brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Pontius 

claimed that the constitutional right to petition the government nullified the DOJ’s 

immunity, and that by being on social-media “[p]latforms,” the government “signed [its] 

[s]overeign immunity away.” R. at 64. The district court correctly rejected both 

arguments. See Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1990) 

(determining that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is consistent with the First 

Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances); Return Mail, 

Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853, 1862 (2019) (“Congress must unequivocally 

express any waiver of sovereign immunity for that waiver to be effective.”). 

Appellate Case: 22-6073 Document: 010110804134 Date Filed: 01/26/2023 Page: 3
4 

 On appeal, Mr. Pontius provides no coherent, relevant argument regarding a 

waiver of sovereign immunity.1

 Indeed, his appellate brief is rife with implausible, 

incomprehensible, and/or prolix allegations against various public and private figures and 

institutions. See, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 12 (referencing “Nazi king rules” and declaring 

“[t]here is no rule of law[] in North America only dictatorship by corrupt agencies of an 

illegimate [sic] government protected under the color of law by judges” (capitalization 

omitted)). Briefing of this nature waives appellate review. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 

(holding that pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or 

any legal authority for support,” together with his disrespectful comments about the 

district judge’s integrity, “disentitle[d] him to [appellate] review”); Adler v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in the 

opening brief are waived.”). 

CONCLUSION

 We affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Mr. Pontius’s pending motions. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(2)(A) (requiring that motions identify supporting legal 

argument). 

Entered for the Court 

Timothy M. Tymkovich 

Circuit Judge 

1

 To the extent Mr. Pontius cites 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2071(b), neither statute 

waives the DOJ’s immunity from his civil suit. See 18 U.S.C. § 287 (providing 

criminal penalties for presenting a “false, fictitious, or fraudulent” “claim upon or 

against the United States, or any department or agency thereof”); id. § 2071(b) 

(providing criminal penalties and forfeiture of office if a records custodian 

unlawfully removes or destroys a record). 

Appellate Case: 22-6073 Document: 010110804134 Date Filed: 01/26/2023 Page: 4