A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
E VE RE T T HOUC K,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6006 v . (W . D is t. O k la .) O K LA H O M A W O RK ER S’ C O M P E N S A T IO N C O U R T ; M A R C IA W I LLI AM SON ; DR EW E D M O N D SO N , St at e A t t orney Ge n e r a l ; COM P S OURCE OKLAHO M A; LARRY BRAWN ER,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 12 47 - F)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , HA RTZ and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. O n O ct ober27, 2005, E ver et tH ouck fi l ed s ui ti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C ou rtfor the W est ern D i stri ctof O klahom a againstt he O klahom a W orkers ’-2-

C om pens at i on C our t , M ar ci a W i l l i amson, D r ew E dm onds on, C om pSour ce O k lah o m a , an d L a rryB ra w n e r. T h e c o m p lain t sta tes in f u ll: T h e Ok l a h o ma Wo r k e r s Co mp e n s a t i o n a n d Co mp u s o u r c e Ok d isc rim in a te a g a in st w o rk e rs w h o h a v e inju rie s th a t w ill n o t re su lt i n l ar ge aw ar ds . I n thos e ca s es w her e w or ker s ar e abl e t o obt ai n l egal rep rese n tat ion , C o m p u so u rce fo rce s tho se c ase s to b e tak en to co u rt an d the law y er w ith d raw s fro m rep rese n ti n g the injured w o rke r. In m ycas e, I chos e t o cont i nue w i th m ycas e pr o s e, and have found a sy ste m in w h ich ju d g e s to tallyig n o re e v id e n c e a n d ro u tin e lyru le in favorof C om pus our ce. I have t aken mycompl ai ntt o the A t t orney G ener al and have noteven gotthe di gni tyof a r es pons e. . . . I n the in te re s ts o f

ju s tic e a n d e q u ity, I a m n o w ta k in g m yc a s e to th is c o u rt . I w oul d l i ke t o m ake thi s cas e a c l as s act i on t o i nvi t e other s w ho have be en deni ed j us t i ce bythi s cour tt o j oi n thi s act i on. T o corr ect th is inju stic e , the re n e e d s to b e a m o n e tar ya w a rd fo r a ll th e p e o p le w h o w e re inju re d b yth is c o u rt, an d a n e w a n d fa ir h e a rin g o n th e ir c a s e s . R . D oc. 1. T he defendant s , otherthan M s . W i l l i amson, m oved t o di s m i s s the com plai nt. T he d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed thei r m oti on s, dis m i ssi ng al l defe nd ants , i ncludi ng M s. W i l l i am son, w i tho ut pr ej ud i ce. Itrul ed thatM r. H ou ck’s r espon se w as unt i m el yunderthe l ocal rul es s o “i ti s appr opr i at e t o deem bot h m ot i ons confe s s ed and gr ant ed on thatbas i s . ” Id . D o c . 1 6 a t 2 . A ltern a tiv e ly , it di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds that( 1) t he courtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on; ( 2) t he compl ai nt fai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m ; and ( 3) w i th r es pectt o defe ndant s W i l l i amson and Br a wn e r , t h e c o mp l a i n tma d e n o a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s tt h e m. W e a ffi r m. T he unt i m el i nes s of M r . H ouck’ s r es pons e t o the mot i ons t o di s m i s s w as n o t a s u ffic ie n t b a s is fo r d is m is s a l. See I s s a v. C omp USA , 354 F. 3d 1174, 1177- 78 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( “[A ] di s tr i ctcourtm aynotgr anta mot i on t o di s m i s s for-3-

fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im m e re ly b e c a u s e a p a rt yfa ile d to file a re s p o n s e . . . . [ E ]v e n if

a p lain tiff

d o e s n o t file a re sp o n se to a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r fa ilu re to stat e a claim , the d istri ct co u rtm u st st il l exa m ine th e a ll eg ati o n s in the p lai n ti ff ’s compl ai ntand det erm i ne w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s s t at ed a c l ai m upon w hi ch re lief c a n b e g ra n ted .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s, c itatio n s, a n d b ra c k e ts om i t t ed) ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtal s o rul ed, how ever , thati tl acke d s ubj ect - m at t er ju ri s d ic tio n . O u r r e v ie w o f th is is s u e is d e n o v o . See Col o. E nvt l . C oal . v. Wenke r , 3 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). E v en co n stru ing M r. H o u ck ’s pro s e c o m p la in t lib e ra lly, a s w e m u s t, se e Hu n t v. U p h o ff , 1 9 9 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (1 0 th C i r . 1999) , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatdi ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on does not exi s t , and the compl ai ntfai l s t o s etfor th “a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the gr ounds upon w hi ch the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on depends , ” as r equi r ed byFed. R . C i v. P . 8 (a ). W e A F F IR M the ju d g m en t of the d istri ct co u rtan d d en yM r. H o u ck ’s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge