Smith v. City of Oklahoma City
669 F. App'x 505
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Smith, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging broad racial discrimination against Black people in Oklahoma and related systemic practices (e.g., arrest rates, mock trials, "unsound practices").
- The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, concluding the allegations were conclusory and too general.
- The district court indicated amendment would be futile and entered a final dismissal; Smith appealed and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.
- The panel granted Smith IFP status but reviewed de novo the § 1915 dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Smith’s brief identified Title VI and practice/patterns of discrimination but offered no developed argument or citation as required by Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
- The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, finding the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment and therefore no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s complaint states a claim under civil-rights law (e.g., Title VI) | Smith alleges Title VI violations and systemic racial discrimination against Black people in Oklahoma | The complaint is conclusory, general, and fails to plead actionable facts supporting a civil-rights claim | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; allegations too general to proceed |
| Whether dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B) was proper and appealable | Implicitly argues denial of relief; sought IFP on appeal | District court treated dismissal as final because amendment would be futile | IFP granted on appeal; dismissal affirmed as final and appropriate |
| Whether pro se status required liberal construction to save the complaint | Smith’s filings deserve liberal construction but are not advocacy | Court must not act as plaintiff’s advocate; pleading deficiencies remain | Liberal construction does not cure conclusory, non-pleaded facts; dismissal stands |
| Whether failure to brief issues forfeits arguments on appeal | Smith listed issues (Title VI, patterns) without arguments or authority | Rule 28 requires argument section with contentions and authorities; mere listing is inadequate | Arguments forfeited; court declines to consider undeveloped issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333 (10th Cir. 2003) (standard for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) review)
- Curley v. Perry, 465 F.3d 444 (10th Cir. 2006) (pro se dismissal; amendment futility standard)
- Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444 (10th Cir.) (finality of dismissal when amendment would be futile)
- Perry v. 246 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2001) (courts need not reach alternative grounds when primary basis controls)
- Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d 803 (10th Cir. 1999) (procedural principles on appellate review)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
- Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 305 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2002) (adequate briefing requirement on appeal)
- B. Willis, C.P.A., Inc. v. BNSF Ry. Corp., 531 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2008) (dismissal ordinarily non-final when amendment available)