Wilson v. District Court of Tulsa County

Appellate Case: 25-5017 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 1

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

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 29, 2025

_________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court GARRY WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-5017

(D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00469-GKF-JFJ) DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA (N.D. Okla.) COUNTY; OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,

Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ Garry Wayne Wilson, a state inmate proceeding pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), 1 appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

Appellate Case: 25-5017 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 2 against the District Court of Tulsa County and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (collectively, the “state-court defendants”). In his complaint, he alleged that the state-court defendants violated his civil rights during his criminal prosecution because they lacked jurisdiction over him for “crimes occurring in Indian Country[.]” R. at 8. The district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. We review de novo. McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir. 2001).

The district court concluded that Wilson failed to state a § 1983 claim because neither state-court defendant was a “person” that could be sued under § 1983. R. at 14–15; see Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[T]his and other circuit courts have held that a state court is not a ‘person’ under § 1983.”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011). The district court also concluded that his § 1983 claims failed because his criminal judgment has not been invalidated but his § 1983 claims would, if successful, “necessarily imply the invalidity of [his] criminal conviction or sentence[.]” R. at 16; see Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005) (“[A] state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.”).

Appellate Case: 25-5017 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 05/29/2025 Page: 3

We agree with the district court. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous, deny Wilson’s motion to proceed IFP, and assess a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2

Entered for the Court Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge