Appellate Case: 24-1107 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 11, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court CYRUS HAZARI, & Private Attorney General, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 24-1107 v. (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-03168-RMR-MEH) (D. Colo.) US SUPREME COURT, et al., and Does 1-200, Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.** _________________________________ Plaintiff, Cyrus Hazari, a pro se civil litigant, filed suit against the United States Supreme Court and various members and affiliates of the judicial branch. As best we can tell, Plaintiff argues Defendants discriminate against persons with disabilities, like Plaintiff, by requiring compliance with federal rules and procedures when bringing a claim in federal court. [R. at 77–82]. The district court dismissed

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** 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.

Appellate Case: 24-1107 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2024 Page: 2

Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, and Plaintiff appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

The district court determined Plaintiff’s Complaint lacked “the necessary factual matter to substantiate its claims or establish jurisdiction.” [R. at 102].

Accordingly, the district court issued an order asking Plaintiff to demonstrate “why the Complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” [Id.]. The court warned, “[i]f Plaintiff fails to show cause within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.” [Id.].

Nevertheless, Plaintiff made no attempt to comply with the court’s order, filing a “Motion for Stay of Litigation to Allow Remission and Recovery” instead. [R. at 103–04; 107]. Consequently, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [R. at 107].

We review a Rule 41(b) dismissal for abuse of discretion and will only reverse “when a district court relies upon an erroneous conclusion of law or upon clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Arocho v. United States, 502 F. App'x 730, 731 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ecclesiastes 9:10–11–12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir. 2007)). Mindful that we construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally, we have carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s brief as well as the appellate record. See id. Plaintiff has not shown the district court abused its discretion and instead continues to challenge the application of federal rules and procedure on appeal.

Appellate Case: 24-1107 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 10/11/2024 Page: 3

Therefore, we affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's order dated February 12, 2024.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge