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 has 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 therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment isn’t binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 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 Court
2 

Paul Wickham, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his complaint.1

 For the reasons explained below, we affirm. 

Wickham’s complaint names 14 defendants, including a state-court judge; the 

State of Oklahoma; five of Wickham’s family members (the Wickham defendants); 

Nowata County; County Sheriff Kenny Freeman; Deputies Anthony Towers and R. 

Popp; and Bud Frost, Doug Sonnenberg, and Curtis Barnes. Wickham alleges 

(1) “state[-]law claims of fraud or extortion, libel, slander, defamation, loss of 

affection, and emotional anguish,” R. 80; (2) civil-rights claims under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1983; and (3) claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It first ruled that 

the state-court judge had “absolute immunity from civil liability 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 judicial acts, unless 

committed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” (quoting Henriksen v. Bentley, 

644 F.2d 852, 855 (10th Cir. 1981))). Thus, any claims against the judge necessarily 

failed. 

Next, the district court concluded that Wickham failed to plead “any factual 

allegations that support any claims against any of the defendants.” R. 81. Although 

Wickham listed the State, Nowata County, Barnes, Frost, and Sonnenberg as 

 1

 We liberally construe pro se pleadings, but we won’t act as Wickham’s 

advocate. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). 
3 

defendants, he failed to make any factual allegations against them—indeed, their 

names appear only in the case caption and nowhere else in the complaint. Thus, the 

district court concluded that Wickham failed to state a claim against those 

defendants.2

 Regarding any possible § 1983 claim against Popp, Towers, or Freeman, 

the district court stated that Wickham failed to “identif[y] any 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 district court found 

that the same was true of Wickham’s RICO allegations: he failed to state a plausible 

claim. 

Additionally, the district court concluded that it lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction over the claims against the Wickham defendants. Diversity jurisdiction 

didn’t exist because Wickham failed to “identif[y] the citizenship 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 different states with amount in controversy exceeding 

$75,000). Further, according to the Wickham defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

Wickham and the Wickham defendants are all citizens of Oklahoma. And the district 

court noted that Wickham didn’t present any facts supporting federal-question 

jurisdiction: he didn’t plead any facts suggesting that the Wickham defendants were 

 2

 The district court also noted that the State was immune from suit. 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 nonconsenting [s]tates 

may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.”). 
4 

state actors subject to § 1983, and his “unsupported references to RICO d[id] not 

state any colorable claim.” R. 81; see also § 1331 (creating federal-question 

jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States”). Accordingly, the district court dismissed Wickham’s complaint 

without prejudice. Wickham now appeals. 

We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Thomas v. Kaven, 

765 F.3d 1183, 1190 (10th Cir. 2014). We likewise review de novo 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 completely fails to challenge any of 

the district court’s rulings. “The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the 

district court’s decision was wrong. Recitation of a tale of apparent injustice may 

assist in that task, but it cannot substitute for legal argument.” Nixon v. City & Cty. of 

Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Wickham’s opening and reply briefs 

each contain a single page of apparent argument, preceded by several pages of tables 

of contents and authorities that don’t correspond in any way to his argument and 

appear to be taken from briefs in other, unrelated cases. And in those two pages of 

apparent argument, Wickham recites “a tale of apparent injustice” 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 of his complaint. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 

28(a)(8)(A) (noting that appellant’s brief “must contain . . . appellant’s contentions 

and the reasons for them, with citations 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 unfortunately commonplace that an issue on 

appeal is waived because it is not adequately developed in a party’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 of the dismissal”). 

Entered for the Court 

Nancy L. Moritz 

Circuit Judge