UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MAC TRUONG, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KEVIN STITT; GREG MCCORTNEY; 

CHARLES MCCALL; JIM OLSEN; 

DONALD TRUMP; VIRGINIA 

THOMAS; SAMUEL A. ALITO; AMY 

CONEY BARRETT; NEIL GORSUCH; 

BRETT KAVANAUGH; CLARENCE 

THOMAS, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 22-6144

(D.C. No. 5:22-CV-00491-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________

Plaintiff-Appellant, Mac Truong, appearing pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s dismissal of his pro se complaint against various state and federal public 

officials and others as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Our review is 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 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. ** 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.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 6, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6144 Document: 010110778069 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 1
2 

de novo. Carter v. Wyo. Dep’t of Corr., No. 22-8044, 2022 WL 7238406, at *2 (10th 

Cir. Oct. 13, 2022). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-731.4 (2022) 

(Oklahoma Senate Bill 612 (SB 612)), which restricts abortion, violates the United 

States Constitution. See R. 23. He further alleges that another recent provision, 

Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-745.39 (2022), violates his copyrighted material because it 

permits civil actions by private citizens against abortion providers. See id. at 23–24. 

The district court found Mac Truong lacked Article III standing to challenge 

SB 612 as he is a male citizen residing in New Jersey who has not alleged he is 

subjected to the challenged statute. R. 131–32.1

 Moreover, his arguments that he 

does have standing because 1) he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, 2) his daughter is of 

child-bearing age and is concerned about anti-abortion legislation, 3) he loves to have 

sex without worrying about pregnancy, and 4) he invented a machine that allows 

people to have sex without being physically close were found unavailing by the 

district court. R. 132. As for the copyright claim, the district court dismissed the 

claim by determining that Mac Truong’s idea of using community civic officers to 

enforce city regulations and ordinances (“the CCO Network”), is precisely that — an 

idea — and not subject to copyright. R. 132–33. 

1 Moreover, the district court held that to the extent Plaintiff challenges SB 

612 in light of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), has 

rendered that challenge moot. R. 132. 

Appellate Case: 22-6144 Document: 010110778069 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 2
3 

To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) he or 

she has suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury 

and the conduct complained of; and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by 

a favorable decision.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1326 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Further, the injury must be (1) “concrete and particularized,” and (2) “actual or 

imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 

U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)). On 

appeal, rather than challenging the district court’s rejection of his standing to 

challenge SB 612, Mac Truong states the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his suit 

as he is not suing the state of Oklahoma. Aplt. Br. at 4–5. While this court construes 

pro se pleadings liberally, we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the 

litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. 

Selby Connor Maddux & Janner, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2015). Since Mac 

Truong fails entirely to address why the district court erred in denying him standing, 

he provides no basis for reversal. In any event, for substantially the same reason 

given by the district court, Mac Truong does not have standing to challenge SB 612. 

R. 131–32. 

As for Mac Truong’s copyright claim, he alleges he has a copyright interest in 

his idea — the CCO Network — because he has expressed it in a document and in his 

four-hour movie. Aplt. Br. at 6. However, copyright protection does not “extend to 

any idea . . . [or] concept . . . regardless of the from in which it is described, 

explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). In other 

Appellate Case: 22-6144 Document: 010110778069 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 3
4 

words, copyright law “protects the expression of ideas rather than the underlying 

ideas themselves.” Enter. Mgmt. Ltd., Inc. v. Warrick, 717 F.3d 1112, 1117 (10th 

Cir. 2013). Thus, while Mac Truong could arguably allege a copyright interest in his 

movie, he cannot assert such interest in the mere idea of employing private citizens to 

enforce certain laws and regulations even if expressed in a tangible form. 

AFFIRMED. We DENY Mac Truong’s request to strike Defendant-Appellee 

Kevin Stitt’s response brief. Aplt. Reply Br. at 2–3. We further DENY Mac 

Truong’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he has “failed to show the 

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the 

issues raised on appeal.” Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1077, 

1079 (10th Cir. 2007).

Entered for the Court 

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-6144 Document: 010110778069 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 4