Danks v. Alito

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 25-1293
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-1293 Document: 24 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2025 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WILLIAM C. DANKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-1293 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-01282-LTB-RTG) SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR.; (D. Colo.) CLARENCE THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellees. _______________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _______________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________

The plaintiff, Mr. William Danks, sued two United States Supreme

Court Justices, claiming that they should recuse in any cases involving

President Trump. The district court screened the complaint under Local

Rule 8.1, concluding that Mr. Danks lacked standing and dismissing the

action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

* The plaintiff does not request oral argument, and it would not help us decide the appeal. So we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 25-1293 Document: 24 Date Filed: 10/24/2025 Page: 2

Mr. Danks doesn’t question the underlying decision that he lacked

standing. He instead challenges the district court’s process, arguing that

the local rule deprived him of due process by subjecting him to screening

just because he didn’t have an attorney. Irrespective of the local rule,

however, the court needed to consider standing because (1) district courts

must ensure that they have jurisdiction, Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220,

242 (2021), and (2) standing is a jurisdictional requirement, Keyes v.

School Dist. No. 1, 119 F.3d 1437, 1445 (10th Cir. 1997). We thus affirm

the dismissal.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge