Court Opinion

ID: 9366278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:01:01.932069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.134726
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6073     Document: 010110804134         Date Filed: 01/26/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           January 26, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  GLEN A. PONTIOUS,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 22-6073
                                                        (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-00088-G)
  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,                                  (W.D. Okla.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        In this challenge to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election, Glen A. Pontious appeals

 pro se from a district court order dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject

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

                                       BACKGROUND

        In an amended complaint filed in federal district court in 2021, Mr. Pontious

 claimed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was “derelict in [its] duties” for “allow[ing]

 Joe Biden to run for office,” given “[a]pperent [sic] high crimes and misdeanors’s [sic],

        *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 22-6073      Document: 010110804134           Date Filed: 01/26/2023      Page: 2

 conflict of interest[.]” R. at 28 (capitalization omitted). He alleged it was “not fair . . .

 that [former President Donald Trump] was interfeared [sic] with by . . . frivolous

 impeachment.” R. at 31 (capitalization omitted). For relief, he sought $48 million in

 damages and to “remove the Current U.S. Presidential administration via nullification

 and voiding the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and criminaly [sic] prosecute those who

 brought the fraudlent [sic] charges against President Donald Trump.” R. at 36

 (capitalization omitted).

        On the DOJ’s motion, the district court dismissed the amended complaint because

 Mr. Pontious failed to identify a waiver of the DOJ’s immunity from suit. See Normandy

 Apartments, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir.

 2009) (“Sovereign immunity generally shields the United States, its agencies, and its

 officers acting in their official capacity from suit.”).

        Mr. Pontious appealed and filed motions in this court asserting, among other

 things, that the DOJ is “supporting and aiding in treason by sedition,” Mot. for

 Emergency Hr’g at 1 (filed Aug. 12, 2022) (capitalization omitted), and has conspired

 with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to commit “Treason[] and Mutiny[] against

 President Donald J Trump,” Mot. at 3 (filed Sept. 9, 2022).

                                          DISCUSSION
                                    I. Standards of Review

        “We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on sovereign immunity.”

 Mojsilovic v. Okla. ex rel. Bd. of Regents for Univ. of Okla., 841 F.3d 1129, 1131

 (10th Cir. 2016). Because Mr. Pontius proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments

 liberally, but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in

                                                2
Appellate Case: 22-6073     Document: 010110804134         Date Filed: 01/26/2023       Page: 3

 constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &

 Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).

                                 II. Sovereign Immunity

        “The defense of sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, depriving courts of

 subject-matter jurisdiction where applicable.” Normandy Apartments, 554 F.3d at 1295.

 Thus, the party seeking to assert a claim against the government must identify a specific

 waiver of sovereign immunity to establish jurisdiction. See id. The waiver “must be

 unequivocally expressed in statutory text and will not be implied.” Lane v. Pena, 518

 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citation omitted).

        Like the district court, we can find no reference in Mr. Pontius’s amended

 complaint either to the DOJ’s immunity or to any statute capable of waiving that

 immunity. In his district court brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Pontius

 claimed that the constitutional right to petition the government nullified the DOJ’s

 immunity, and that by being on social-media “[p]latforms,” the government “signed [its]

 [s]overeign immunity away.” R. at 64. The district court correctly rejected both

 arguments. See Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1472-73 (10th Cir. 1990)

 (determining that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is consistent with the First

 Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances); Return Mail,

 Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853, 1862 (2019) (“Congress must unequivocally

 express any waiver of sovereign immunity for that waiver to be effective.”).

                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-6073     Document: 010110804134          Date Filed: 01/26/2023       Page: 4

        On appeal, Mr. Pontius provides no coherent, relevant argument regarding a

 waiver of sovereign immunity.1 Indeed, his appellate brief is rife with implausible,

 incomprehensible, and/or prolix allegations against various public and private figures and

 institutions. See, e.g., Aplt. Br. at 12 (referencing “Nazi king rules” and declaring

 “[t]here is no rule of law[] in North America only dictatorship by corrupt agencies of an

 illegimate [sic] government protected under the color of law by judges” (capitalization

 omitted)). Briefing of this nature waives appellate review. See Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841

 (holding that pro se litigant’s “conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or

 any legal authority for support,” together with his disrespectful comments about the

 district judge’s integrity, “disentitle[d] him to [appellate] review”); Adler v. Wal-Mart

 Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Arguments inadequately briefed in the

 opening brief are waived.”).

                                        CONCLUSION

        We affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Mr. Pontius’s pending motions.

 See Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(2)(A) (requiring that motions identify supporting legal

 argument).

                                               Entered for the Court

                                               Timothy M. Tymkovich
                                               Circuit Judge

        1
         To the extent Mr. Pontius cites 18 U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2071(b), neither statute
 waives the DOJ’s immunity from his civil suit. See 18 U.S.C. § 287 (providing
 criminal penalties for presenting a “false, fictitious, or fraudulent” “claim upon or
 against the United States, or any department or agency thereof”); id. § 2071(b)
 (providing criminal penalties and forfeiture of office if a records custodian
 unlawfully removes or destroys a record).

                                               4