Court Opinion

ID: 9352713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 16:01:20.657083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:54.024137
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-5025     Document: 010110794475      Date Filed: 01/09/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        January 9, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  DONALD G. JONES,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 22-5025
                                                 (D.C. No. 4:20-CV-00369-WPJ-CDL)
  WAL-MART, INC.; WALMART, INC.,                             (N.D. Okla.)
  FACILITY #5363,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Donald G. Jones, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal

 of his diversity personal-injury suit against Wal-Mart, Inc. and a Wal-Mart store.

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

       Mr. Jones’ sole argument on appeal is that the Honorable William P. Johnson,

 a federal district judge in the District of New Mexico, unlawfully decided Mr. Jones’

       *
         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. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 22-5025     Document: 010110794475         Date Filed: 01/09/2023        Page: 2

 case because Judge Johnson is not a district judge in the Northern District of

 Oklahoma. We reject this proposition.

        The federal district courts of both New Mexico and Oklahoma are within the

 Tenth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 41. Under 28 U.S.C. § 292(b), “[t]he chief judge of a

 circuit may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge

 of the circuit to hold a district court in any district within the circuit.” Invoking

 § 292(b) in an order dated December 16, 2021, the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit

 designated and assigned Judge Johnson (a district judge of the circuit) to hold court

 in the Northern District of Oklahoma (a district within the circuit) from January 1,

 2022, through December 31, 2022. Therefore, when he issued the dismissal order on

 March 16, 2022, Judge Johnson was authorized to exercise “all the powers” of a

 Northern District of Oklahoma judge (with limited exceptions not relevant here).

 28 U.S.C. § 296. Further, before Judge Johnson issued the dismissal order, the

 Northern District of Oklahoma had reassigned Mr. Jones’ case to him, as reflected on

 the district court’s docket. For these reasons, Judge Johnson did not unlawfully hear

 and decide Mr. Jones’ case.

        Mr. Jones makes no argument challenging the district court’s grounds for

 dismissing his case. Those grounds included not only his noncompliance with a

 permanent injunction previously entered against him that restricts his ability to file

 civil lawsuits, but also lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. By failing

 to make an argument, he has waived any challenge to those decisions. See Bronson

 v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to

                                              2
Appellate Case: 22-5025    Document: 010110794475       Date Filed: 01/09/2023   Page: 3

 consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an

 appellant’s opening brief.”). Although we afford pro se litigants a liberal

 construction of their filings, we do not make arguments for them. See Garrett v.

 Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

       We grant Mr. Jones’ motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees,

 and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Bobby R. Baldock
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            3