688 F. App'x 554
10th Cir.2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Ayinde Mohn sued federal officials alleging mismanagement of Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts and sought relief including Certificates of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB) for himself and several Hardrick relatives.
- Mohn proceeded in forma pauperis; the district court screened his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The district court found Mohn disavowed an allegation that he was an eligible heir to the Hardricks and did not allege any genealogical link between himself (or his documented Reese ancestors) and the Hardricks.
- The court noted Mohn previously submitted a claim under a 2009 class-action settlement relating to IIM accounts; his claim was denied for lack of an Indian blood degree and he failed to opt out of the settlement.
- Documentary attachments showed the Hardricks and Mohn’s Reese ancestors were listed as Cherokee Freedmen without an Indian blood degree, and the BIA denied Mohn a CDIB.
- The district court dismissed with prejudice, denied IFP status, and Mohn appealed; the Tenth Circuit affirmed sua sponte dismissal as futile to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/heirship to Hardrick IIM accounts | Mohn asserted entitlement as an heir and sought relief for Hardricks and himself | Defendants argued Mohn failed to allege or preserve any cognizable heirship or entitlement | Court held Mohn disavowed heirship allegation and failed to allege connection to Hardricks; no standing to obtain relief |
| Claim preclusion / 2009 class settlement | Mohn implied his claims were not barred and submitted a new theory tying him to class members | Defendants relied on the 2009 settlement denial and that Mohn failed to opt out, so claims are preserved or extinguished as appropriate | Court held Mohn’s prior settlement claim was denied and, even if he now alleged eligibility, he failed to opt out so claims tied to that settlement were not preserved |
| Merits: entitlement to CDIB / status as Freedmen | Mohn argued he and ancestors (Reeses) entitle him to CDIB and relief | Defendants pointed to BIA records showing Reeses and Hardricks listed as Freedmen without an Indian blood degree | Court held documentary record shows Freedmen status and BIA denial of CDIB, so Mohn cannot prevail on merits |
| Jurisdiction / statutory claims | Mohn contended certain statutes and Interior Secretary jurisdiction applied | Defendants maintained the complaint failed to state a claim regardless of jurisdictional theories | Court held Mohn’s appellate arguments did not address district court’s bases; dismissal remained proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of § 1915 dismissal)
- Curly v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissal proper where amendment would be futile)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for futile amendment)
- James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2013) (courts liberally construe pro se filings but do not act as advocates)