Brooks v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company

Appellate Case: 24-3137 Document: 55-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2025 Page: 1

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 20, 2025 ___________________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court JAMES L. BROOKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 24-3137

(D.C. No. 2:24-CV-02188-KHV-ADM) BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (D. Kan.) TRUST COMPANY; J.W. COLE FINANCIAL SERVICES; NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC; TRANS AMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO.; LEND NATION; FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; STATE OF KANSAS,

Defendants - Appellees.

____________________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

____________________________________________ Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.

This appeal arises from a pro se litigant’s unwillingness to use his Social Security Number with financial institutions. Declining to use that number, he was unable to cash checks when his mother and wife died. He sued the financial institutions, the State of Kansas, and the Federal Trade Commission. The district court dismissed the action based on a lack of federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff appeals, but none of his appellate points cast doubt on the district court’s jurisdictional ruling. So we affirm. 1. Judicial Power of the United States

The plaintiff contends that the district court had jurisdiction because the federal judicial power applies. But jurisdiction exists only if the case falls within both (1) the judicial power of the United States and (2) the scope of a jurisdictional statute. See Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). And the plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that it lacked statutory jurisdiction. The absence of statutory jurisdiction would prevent reversal even if the federal judicial power otherwise applied. 2. Eleventh Amendment

The plaintiff also argues that the Eleventh Amendment doesn’t apply to claims by citizens against their own states. But the Supreme Court has rejected this argument. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10–21 (1890). We’re bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions, so we too must reject this argument.

3. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

In addition, the plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction when one of the parties is a state. But the plaintiff filed this action in district court rather than the Supreme Court. As a result, the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction has no bearing on our issues.

4. Non-Jurisdictional Arguments

The plaintiff also argues that  the financial institutions failed to act in good faith in violation of the Contracts Clause,  a conspiracy exists to prevent payment of inheritances,  the federal judiciary and banking system have become politically weaponized,  those institutions are trying to force him to become a socialist,  he has been “blacklisted” by certain Kansas state courts, Aplt.

Br. at 3,  federal courts are prejudiced against pro se parties,  he was the subject of an unconstitutional bill of attainder,  the district judge failed to recuse because of her dislike for the

Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction,  Social Security is unconstitutional,  the federal constitution prohibits “Progressives, Liberals,

Socialists, Fascists, and Communists” from holding office, id. at 7,

 the State of Kansas made factual misstatements about the viability of his Social Security number, and  the district court prevented him from filing certain briefs and evidence.

But these arguments do not concern the existence of jurisdiction, so we lack the power to address them. See Cunningham v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005).

We therefore affirm the dismissal.

Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge