UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

RONNIE LEN McCOLLUM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

and 

REBECCA M. ELDRIDGE; JILL 

McCOLLUM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STATE OF KANSAS, EX REL. 

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; NEOSHO 

MEMORIAL REGIONAL MEDICAL 

CENTER; SAINT FRANCIS 

COMMUNITY SERVICES; 

GREENWOOD COUNTY COURT; 

WEST ELK SCHOOL DISTRICT #282, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-3147 

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-01049-EFM-KMH) 

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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 

April 8, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-3147 Document: 01019412087 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Ronnie Len McCollum appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 

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

 Mr. McCollum and two other plaintiffs filed suit in the district court seeking 

the immediate return of three children who had been placed in state custody, as well 

as money damages. To establish federal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs referred to 

diversity jurisdiction; Article VII, Section 14 of the Bill of Rights; 28 U.S.C. § 1343; 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA); the Revised Kansas Code for Care of 

Children; and the Privacy Act. The defendants moved to dismiss. In a thorough 

memorandum and order, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to 

establish any ground for federal jurisdiction. The district court also determined that 

even if it had found a basis for asserting jurisdiction, it would abstain under Younger 

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and that Eleventh Amendment immunity precluded the 

plaintiffs from proceeding against two of the defendants. Accordingly, the district 

court dismissed the case. 

 We review the issue of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Marcus v. Kan. 

Dep’t of Revenue, 170 F.3d 1305, 1309 (10th Cir. 1999). “Because the jurisdiction of 

federal courts is limited, there is a presumption against our jurisdiction, and the party 

invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.” Id. at 1309 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but 

must dismiss the cause . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Appellate Case: 14-3147 Document: 01019412087 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

 Mr. McCollum is the only appellant. Because he is representing himself, we 

liberally construe his filings. See Lundahl v. Halabi, 773 F.3d 1061, 1066 (10th Cir. 

2014). “But this court will not act as a pro se litigant’s advocate” and “cannot take 

on the responsibility for serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments 

and searching the record.” Id. at 1066-67 (internal quotation marks omitted). We 

generally consider any argument not raised in the appellant’s opening brief to be 

waived. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998). 

 Most of Mr. McCollum’s opening brief argues the merits of his underlying 

claims, rather than addressing whether the district court correctly determined that it 

lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The only basis for federal jurisdiction mentioned 

in the opening brief is the ESA, which Mr. McCollum invokes because the children 

are the last of their family. But as the district court noted, the ESA is intended to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plants, see 16 U.S.C. § 1531(a), and Mr. McCollum has 

offered no authority that extends the ESA to protect human beings. 

 Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we see no reversible error, and we 

affirm the dismissal for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s order 

filed on July 8, 2014. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Bobby R. Baldock 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-3147 Document: 01019412087 Date Filed: 04/08/2015 Page: 3