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

* 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. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 1 Because Wilson proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings, but we do not serve as his advocate. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009). 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.”).

2 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

2 Wilson’s appellate brief includes an application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Op. Br. at 7–11. But “a COA is not necessary to appeal from a district court’s resolution of § 1983 claims.” Buchanan v. Oklahoma, 398 F. App’x 339, 343 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)). So we do not consider the COA matter. 3