Banks v. American Baptist Churches , 594 F. App'x 544 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
February 3, 2015
TENTH CIRCUIT
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
SHAMEKA BANKS; TIMOTHY
JOHNSON; CAROL JONES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 14-7067
v. (D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00100-RAW)
(E.D. Okla.)
AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES;
BACONE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE;
MUSKOGEE REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
While attending Bacone Christian College, Timothy Johnson was sent to
Muskogee Regional Medical Center to undergo psychiatric treatment. No one
contacted Mr. Johnson’s mother, Shameka Banks, or his grandmother, Carol
Jones. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Banks, and Ms. Jones allege that Bacone, MRMC, and
*
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) and 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order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of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.
American Baptist Churches should’ve notified the family about Mr. Johnson’s
hospitalization. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007).
On appeal, the family members insist their case is strong but do not directly
address any of the dispositive problems the district court identified in their
pleadings, let alone point out any defects in that court’s judgment. While this
court takes seriously its obligation to construe liberally pro se filings like those
here, it will not invent arguments for reversal that a litigant does not even touch
upon. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th
Cir. 2005). This court “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the
litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. Pro
se litigants, moreover, are not excused from following the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants. Id. The family members’ briefs don’t come
close to complying with Fed. R. App. P. 28 — the rule governing the form and
content of appellate briefs. The briefs fail to list any issues for appeal, don’t
explain why the court erred in dismissing their claims, and lack any citations to
authority whatsoever.
-2-
The judgment is affirmed.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Neil M. Gorsuch
Circuit Judge
.
-3-