UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ PAUL LEROY WICKHAM, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. CARL GIBSON, Judge; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; NOWATA COUNTY; TERRY DEAN WICKHAM; KENNY FREEMAN; BEVERLY ELLEN JOHNSON; TERRY ALLAN WICKHAN; THAD AUSTIN WICKHAM; ANTHONY TOWERS; R POPP; CURTIS BARNES; BUD FROST; DOUG SONNENBERG; LINDA WICKHAM, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-5112 (D.C. No. 4:18-CV -00449-JED-FHM) (N.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , MURPHY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously to honor the parties ’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir . R. 34.1(G). The case is there fore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgmen t isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res j udicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 28, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Paul Wickham, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s o rder dismissing his complaint. 1 For the reasons explaine d below, we affirm. Wickham’s complaint names 14 de fendants, includi ng a state-cour t judge; the State of Oklahoma; five of Wickha m’s family members (the Wickha m defendants); Nowata County; County Sheriff Ke nny Freeman; Deputies Anthony T owers and R. Popp; and Bud Frost, Doug Sonn enberg, and Curtis Barnes. Wickha m alleges (1) “state[-]law claims of fraud or extortion, libel, slander, defamation, loss of affection, and emotional anguish ,” R. 80; (2) civil-rights clai ms under 28 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) claims arising u nder the Racketeer Influenced a nd Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1 970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It first ruled that the state-court judge had “abso lute immunity fro m civil liabili ty for judicial acts.” R. 81; see also Whitesel v. Sengenberger , 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for judicia l acts, unless committed in the clear absence of all juris diction.” (quoting Henriksen v. Bentley , 644 F.2d 852, 855 (10th Cir. 1981))). Thus, any claims against the judge necessarily failed. Next, the district court concl uded that Wickham failed to plead “any factual allegations that support any claims against any of the defendants .” R. 81. Although Wickham listed the State, Nowa ta County, Barnes, Frost, and Son nenberg as

1 We liberally construe pro se pl eadings, but we won’t act as Wi ckham’s advocate. See James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).3 defendants, he failed to make a ny factual allegations against t hem—indeed, their names appear only in the case ca ption and nowhere else in the c omplaint. Thus, the district court concluded that Wic kham failed to state a claim a gainst those defendants. 2 Regarding any possible § 1983 cl aim against Popp, Towers, or F reeman, the district court stated that Wi ckham failed to “identif[y] an y constitutional right that was violated.” Id. at 82. Nor did Wickham “assert [] facts plausibly indicating that any defendant violated his rights.” Id. (emphasis added). The d istrict court found that the same was true of Wickha m’s RICO allegations: he failed to state a plausible claim. Additionally, the district court concluded that it lacked subje ct-matter jurisdiction over the claims aga inst the Wickham defendants. Di versity jurisdiction didn’t exist because Wickham faile d to “identif[y] the citizens hip of the individual defendants or otherwise provide [] a single fact to support the existence of complete diversity.” Id. at 80; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (creating diversity jurisdiction over actions between citizens of diffe rent states with amount in con troversy exceeding $75,000). Further, according to t he Wickham defendants’ motion to dismiss, Wickham and the Wickha m defendants are all citizens of Oklahoma . And the district court noted that Wickham didn’t present any facts supporting fe deral-question jurisdiction: he didn’t plead any facts suggesting that the Wic kham defendants were

2 The district court also noted t hat the State was immune from s uit. See U.S. Const. amend. XI; Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett , 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001) (“The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonc onsenting [s]tates may not be sued by private indi viduals in federal court.”).4 state actors subject to § 1983, a nd his “unsupported references to RICO d[id] not state any colorable claim.” R. 81; see also § 1331 (creating federal-question jurisdiction over “civil actions a rising under the Constitution , laws, or treaties of the United States”). Accordingly, the district court dismissed Wick ham’s complaint without prejudice. Wickham now appeals. We review a dismissal for fail ure to state a claim de novo. Thomas v. Kaven , 765 F.3d 1183, 1190 ( 10th Cir. 2014). We likewise review de nov o a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Holt v. United States , 46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10th Cir. 1995). But in his briefing, Wickham co mpletely fails to challenge any of the district court’s rulings. “Th e first task of an appellant i s to explain to us why the district court’s decision was w rong. Recitation of a tale of ap parent injustice may assist in that task, but it ca nnot substitute for legal argumen t.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of
Denver , 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir . 2015). Wickham’s opening and r eply briefs each contain a single page of appa rent argument, preceded by se veral pages of tables of contents and authorities that d on’t correspond in any way to his argument and appear to be taken from briefs i n other, unrelated cases. And i n those two pages of apparent argument, Wickham recite s “a tale of apparent injustic e” rather than explaining “why the district court’s decision was wrong.” Id. He also fails to cite any legal authority, the record, or any part o f his complaint. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (noting that appella nt’s brief “must contain . . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with c itations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”).5 Accordingly, Wickham waived any challenge to the district court ’s rulings.
See Nixon , 784 F.3d at 1368 (“It is unfort unately commonplace that an is sue on appeal is waived beca use it is not adequately developed in a pa rty’s brief.”). We therefore affirm. See id. at 1369 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim because “opening brief contain[ed] nary a word to challenge the basis o f the dismissal”).

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge