Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 1, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DERRICK DEWAYNE PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 25-6114 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-00743-J) JUDGE PERRY HUDSON; (W.D. Okla.) BENJAMIN HARTMAN; TIARA MCMINN; PHILLIP MARTIN; ELIAS RIVERA; TANNER FERRELL; JUSTIN HATCHER; TYLER HEAD; JERMAINE MCCULLUM; CHARLES MCMACKIN; AARON WESLEY HARMON; SAMATHA PATTERSON; JOI MISKEL; KATHRINE SAVAGE; ADA N. PILCHER; HAYDEN BARNES; RONNIE WAUGH; BRADON CASH; ROBERT CONGILIONE,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
*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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2
Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Derrick Dewayne Parker filed the underlying pro se action as a
pretrial detainee, claiming judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers,
and his attorneys involved in his state criminal prosecutions violated his
Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, ruling most of the claims were barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and judicial and prosecutorial immunity,
while the rest of his allegations failed to state a claim. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
Parker was prosecuted in two Oklahoma cases, CF-2023-610 and CF-
2023-2301. The charges in CF-2023-610 were dismissed, and he pled guilty
to trafficking fentanyl in CF-2023-2301. In his operative complaint, Parker
alleged the defendants associated with CF-2023-610 provided false
information in a search warrant, prevented him from confronting his
accusers, and denied him a speedy trial, violating his Fourth and Sixth
Amendment rights. 1 He alleged the defendants associated with CF-2023-
1 The defendants associated with CF-2023-610 are Judges Kathrine Savage and Perry Hudson; Officers Elias Rivera, Jermaine McMullum, Aaron Wesley Harmon, Charles McMackin, Robert Conigilione; and District Attorneys Benjamin Hartman, Tiara McMinn, and Ada N. Pilcher. 2 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3
2301 violated his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights by providing false
information to secure his arrest, failing to issue search or arrest warrants,
preventing him from confronting his accusers, and denying him a speedy
trial. 2
The district court dismissed the action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, ruling: 1) the claims challenging Parker’s prosecution and
conviction in CF-2023-2301 were barred by Heck because his conviction had
not been overturned; 2) the claims against the judges and prosecutors were
barred by absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity; and 3) his
allegations against the defendants associated with CF-2023-601 failed to
state a claim.
II
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under § 1915A for
failure to state a claim. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir.
2009). We also review de novo its dismissal under Heck, see Graff v.
Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc. 65 F.4th 500, 521 (10th Cir. 2023), and its
application of both judicial immunity, Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham,
2The defendants associated with CF-2023-2301 are Judges Kathrine Savage and Perry Hudson; Officers Tyler Head, Justin Hatcher, Hayden Barnes, Ronnie Waugh, Brandon Cash, Phillip Martin, and Tanner Ferrell; District Attorneys Benjamin Hartman, Tiara McMinn, and Ada N. Pilcher; Parker’s private attorney, Joi Miskel; and his public defender, Samantha Patterson. 3 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 4
640 F.3d 1140, 1153 (10th Cir. 2011), and prosecutorial immunity, Gagan
v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1475 (10th Cir. 1994).
We afford Parker’s pro se materials a liberal construction, but we do
not advocate on his behalf. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425
F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither
do we generally consider new arguments or theories raised for the first time
on appeal, Little v. Budd Co., 955 F.3d 816, 821 (10th Cir. 2020), or
arguments that do not address the basis for the district court’s dismissal,
Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir. 2015).
Inadequately presented arguments are waived. Bronson v. Swensen,
500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007).
Parker first contends the district court incorrectly applied Heck,
which bars a plaintiff from bringing “a civil rights claim for damages under
[42 U.S.C.] § 1983 based on actions whose unlawfulness would render an
existing criminal conviction invalid,” Havens v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 776, 782
(10th Cir. 2015). Parker’s claims challenging his conviction in CF-2023-
2301 are barred under Heck because his conviction for trafficking in
fentanyl has not been overturned. Although Parker says Heck is
inapplicable because he was a pretrial detainee, he cites no authority for
this argument, which is inconsistent with our case law. See Hooks v. Atoki,
983 F.3d 1193, 1201, 1203 (10th Cir. 2020) (applying Heck to pretrial
4 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 5
detainee’s excessive force claims, which “would take aim at the heart of his
criminal plea”); see also, e.g., Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1041,
1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretrial detainee’s Sixth Amendment claim barred by
Heck); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102-03 (5th Cir. 1996) (pretrial
detainee’s Fifth Amendment claim barred by Heck). This argument fails.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 1, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DERRICK DEWAYNE PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 25-6114 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-00743-J) JUDGE PERRY HUDSON; (W.D. Okla.) BENJAMIN HARTMAN; TIARA MCMINN; PHILLIP MARTIN; ELIAS RIVERA; TANNER FERRELL; JUSTIN HATCHER; TYLER HEAD; JERMAINE MCCULLUM; CHARLES MCMACKIN; AARON WESLEY HARMON; SAMATHA PATTERSON; JOI MISKEL; KATHRINE SAVAGE; ADA N. PILCHER; HAYDEN BARNES; RONNIE WAUGH; BRADON CASH; ROBERT CONGILIONE,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
*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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2
Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Derrick Dewayne Parker filed the underlying pro se action as a
pretrial detainee, claiming judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers,
and his attorneys involved in his state criminal prosecutions violated his
Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, ruling most of the claims were barred by Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and judicial and prosecutorial immunity,
while the rest of his allegations failed to state a claim. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I
Parker was prosecuted in two Oklahoma cases, CF-2023-610 and CF-
2023-2301. The charges in CF-2023-610 were dismissed, and he pled guilty
to trafficking fentanyl in CF-2023-2301. In his operative complaint, Parker
alleged the defendants associated with CF-2023-610 provided false
information in a search warrant, prevented him from confronting his
accusers, and denied him a speedy trial, violating his Fourth and Sixth
Amendment rights. 1 He alleged the defendants associated with CF-2023-
1 The defendants associated with CF-2023-610 are Judges Kathrine Savage and Perry Hudson; Officers Elias Rivera, Jermaine McMullum, Aaron Wesley Harmon, Charles McMackin, Robert Conigilione; and District Attorneys Benjamin Hartman, Tiara McMinn, and Ada N. Pilcher. 2 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3
2301 violated his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights by providing false
information to secure his arrest, failing to issue search or arrest warrants,
preventing him from confronting his accusers, and denying him a speedy
trial. 2
The district court dismissed the action sua sponte under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, ruling: 1) the claims challenging Parker’s prosecution and
conviction in CF-2023-2301 were barred by Heck because his conviction had
not been overturned; 2) the claims against the judges and prosecutors were
barred by absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity; and 3) his
allegations against the defendants associated with CF-2023-601 failed to
state a claim.
II
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under § 1915A for
failure to state a claim. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir.
2009). We also review de novo its dismissal under Heck, see Graff v.
Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc. 65 F.4th 500, 521 (10th Cir. 2023), and its
application of both judicial immunity, Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham,
2The defendants associated with CF-2023-2301 are Judges Kathrine Savage and Perry Hudson; Officers Tyler Head, Justin Hatcher, Hayden Barnes, Ronnie Waugh, Brandon Cash, Phillip Martin, and Tanner Ferrell; District Attorneys Benjamin Hartman, Tiara McMinn, and Ada N. Pilcher; Parker’s private attorney, Joi Miskel; and his public defender, Samantha Patterson. 3 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 4
640 F.3d 1140, 1153 (10th Cir. 2011), and prosecutorial immunity, Gagan
v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1475 (10th Cir. 1994).
We afford Parker’s pro se materials a liberal construction, but we do
not advocate on his behalf. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425
F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither
do we generally consider new arguments or theories raised for the first time
on appeal, Little v. Budd Co., 955 F.3d 816, 821 (10th Cir. 2020), or
arguments that do not address the basis for the district court’s dismissal,
Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1369 (10th Cir. 2015).
Inadequately presented arguments are waived. Bronson v. Swensen,
500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007).
Parker first contends the district court incorrectly applied Heck,
which bars a plaintiff from bringing “a civil rights claim for damages under
[42 U.S.C.] § 1983 based on actions whose unlawfulness would render an
existing criminal conviction invalid,” Havens v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 776, 782
(10th Cir. 2015). Parker’s claims challenging his conviction in CF-2023-
2301 are barred under Heck because his conviction for trafficking in
fentanyl has not been overturned. Although Parker says Heck is
inapplicable because he was a pretrial detainee, he cites no authority for
this argument, which is inconsistent with our case law. See Hooks v. Atoki,
983 F.3d 1193, 1201, 1203 (10th Cir. 2020) (applying Heck to pretrial
4 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 5
detainee’s excessive force claims, which “would take aim at the heart of his
criminal plea”); see also, e.g., Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039, 1041,
1049 (9th Cir. 2002) (pretrial detainee’s Sixth Amendment claim barred by
Heck); Hamilton v. Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 102-03 (5th Cir. 1996) (pretrial
detainee’s Fifth Amendment claim barred by Heck). This argument fails.
Parker also contends that, as a pretrial detainee, he was entitled to
different procedural protections than convicted prisoners. But he fails to
develop this argument or explain how it relates to the district court’s
dismissal. We therefore do not consider it. See Nixon, 784 F.3d at 1369;
Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1104.
Last, Parker raises an entirely new argument, or at least a new
theory, that the prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence. See Aplt. Br. at 9-12. But
Parker raised a different argument in the district court, claiming – not that
the prosecution violated Brady by failing to disclose evidence – but rather
that the prosecution violated his speedy trial rights by failing to timely
disclose evidence. See R. at 87 (“[Defendant] District Attorney Ada N.
Pilcher denied Plaintiff [the] right to [a] fast and speedy trial when [she]
failed to provide[] disclosure of evidence . . . .” (capitalization omitted)). The
district court rejected that argument on prosecutorial immunity grounds,
5 Appellate Case: 25-6114 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 6
id. at 182, and Parker does not challenge that ruling on appeal. 3 Because
Parker failed to raise his Brady claim in the district court, we decline to
consider it now for the first time on appeal. See Little, 955 F.3d at 821.
III
The district court’s judgment is affirmed. Parker’s motion to proceed
on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees (Dkt. No. 7) is granted.
Entered for the Court
Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge
3 Neither does Parker challenge the district court’s judicial immunity
rulings, or its conclusion that he failed to state a claim by alleging the defendants associated with CF-2023-601 provided false information in the search warrant and prevented him from confronting his accusers. These issues are waived. See Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1104. 6