Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 9, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court AARON L. TURNER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 25-3063 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-03019-JWL) KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS; CITY (D. Kan.) OF TOPEKA; ANTHONY T. BUKATY; DARRIN HARRIS; DAVID BURNS; PJ HILL; MARY E. CHRISTOPER; SAM SCHIRER; WYANDOTTE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; CITY OF KANSAS CITY; MICHAEL RUSSELL; CHRIS HERNDON; ARANTES LUNA; ADAM CEDERBURG; TONDA HILL; MARK DUPREE, SR.; (FNU) LEE; (FNU) VARNANO; (FNU) CARTER; CLAY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PETER NEUKIRCH; CITY OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 2
Aaron L. Turner, a Kansas prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various Kansas
officials, organizations, and municipalities. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous.
Turner’s § 1983 complaint alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth
Amendment rights related to his Kansas state criminal proceedings. Turner sought to
have the denial of his appeal overturned, his criminal case dismissed, $566,600,000
in damages, and the return of his personal property.
Screening the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the district court issued an
order to show cause why it should not dismiss for failure to state a claim. It noted
Turner’s claims challenging his state convictions and sentence were not cognizable in
a § 1983 action and needed to be brought in an application for habeas relief after
exhaustion of his state-court remedies; and many of the defendants were either
improper defendants to a § 1983 action or were immune from liability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Although it was timely, Turner’s response failed to address the
above bases for dismissal. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a
claim and imposed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2
1 Because Turner represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 Under § 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision, “a prisoner is barred from bringing new civil cases or appeals in civil cases without the prepayment of filing fees if three prior civil cases or appeals in civil cases have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, 2 Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 3
We generally review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim, see Young
v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009), and questions of immunity, see
Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019). We accept as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Young, 554 F.3d at 1256. “[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Turner devotes most of his appellate brief to reasserting lengthy arguments
about the validity of his state-court convictions. He appears to dispute the district
court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim by asserting that the Kansas Court of
Appeals prevented him from exhausting his state-court remedies. But even liberally
construing his appellate brief, we see no argument challenging the district court’s
determination that § 1983 is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge his state
convictions and sentence. Turner has therefore waived appellate review of the
district court’s dismissal of his claims that call into question the lawfulness of his
convictions or sentence. See Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir.
2020) (“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364,
or for failure to state a claim.” Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 2011). 3 Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 4
1369 (10th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of claim where appellant’s opening brief
failed to address the basis for the district court’s ruling).
Turner has also waived appellate review of the district court’s determinations
regarding the defendants’ immunity or unsuitability to a § 1983 action. His assertion
that because he represents himself, the district court should have been more flexible
in “constru[ing] the capacity in which the defendants could be sued,” Opening Br.
at 5, is unsupported and insufficient to preserve the issue. “The first task of an
appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong,” Nixon,
784 F.3d at 1366, and “mere conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or
any legal authority for support” do not satisfy that objective. Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005).
We conclude that this appeal is frivolous because Turner’s arguments are
meritless and fail to meaningfully challenge the bases for the district court’s
dismissal of his action. See Wheeler v. Comm’r, 528 F.3d 773, 782 (10th Cir. 2008)
(“An appeal may be frivolous if it consists of irrelevant and illogical arguments based
on factual misrepresentations and false premises, or when the result is obvious, or the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 9, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court AARON L. TURNER, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 25-3063 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-03019-JWL) KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS; CITY (D. Kan.) OF TOPEKA; ANTHONY T. BUKATY; DARRIN HARRIS; DAVID BURNS; PJ HILL; MARY E. CHRISTOPER; SAM SCHIRER; WYANDOTTE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; CITY OF KANSAS CITY; MICHAEL RUSSELL; CHRIS HERNDON; ARANTES LUNA; ADAM CEDERBURG; TONDA HILL; MARK DUPREE, SR.; (FNU) LEE; (FNU) VARNANO; (FNU) CARTER; CLAY COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT; PETER NEUKIRCH; CITY OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
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. Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 2
Aaron L. Turner, a Kansas prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against various Kansas
officials, organizations, and municipalities. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous.
Turner’s § 1983 complaint alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth
Amendment rights related to his Kansas state criminal proceedings. Turner sought to
have the denial of his appeal overturned, his criminal case dismissed, $566,600,000
in damages, and the return of his personal property.
Screening the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the district court issued an
order to show cause why it should not dismiss for failure to state a claim. It noted
Turner’s claims challenging his state convictions and sentence were not cognizable in
a § 1983 action and needed to be brought in an application for habeas relief after
exhaustion of his state-court remedies; and many of the defendants were either
improper defendants to a § 1983 action or were immune from liability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Although it was timely, Turner’s response failed to address the
above bases for dismissal. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a
claim and imposed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 2
1 Because Turner represents himself, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 Under § 1915(g)’s three-strikes provision, “a prisoner is barred from bringing new civil cases or appeals in civil cases without the prepayment of filing fees if three prior civil cases or appeals in civil cases have been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, 2 Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 3
We generally review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim, see Young
v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009), and questions of immunity, see
Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d 1302, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019). We accept as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Young, 554 F.3d at 1256. “[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Turner devotes most of his appellate brief to reasserting lengthy arguments
about the validity of his state-court convictions. He appears to dispute the district
court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim by asserting that the Kansas Court of
Appeals prevented him from exhausting his state-court remedies. But even liberally
construing his appellate brief, we see no argument challenging the district court’s
determination that § 1983 is not an appropriate vehicle to challenge his state
convictions and sentence. Turner has therefore waived appellate review of the
district court’s dismissal of his claims that call into question the lawfulness of his
convictions or sentence. See Sawyers v. Norton, 962 F.3d 1270, 1286 (10th Cir.
2020) (“Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364,
or for failure to state a claim.” Smith v. Veterans Admin., 636 F.3d 1306, 1309 (10th Cir. 2011). 3 Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 4
1369 (10th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal of claim where appellant’s opening brief
failed to address the basis for the district court’s ruling).
Turner has also waived appellate review of the district court’s determinations
regarding the defendants’ immunity or unsuitability to a § 1983 action. His assertion
that because he represents himself, the district court should have been more flexible
in “constru[ing] the capacity in which the defendants could be sued,” Opening Br.
at 5, is unsupported and insufficient to preserve the issue. “The first task of an
appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong,” Nixon,
784 F.3d at 1366, and “mere conclusory allegations with no citations to the record or
any legal authority for support” do not satisfy that objective. Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005).
We conclude that this appeal is frivolous because Turner’s arguments are
meritless and fail to meaningfully challenge the bases for the district court’s
dismissal of his action. See Wheeler v. Comm’r, 528 F.3d 773, 782 (10th Cir. 2008)
(“An appeal may be frivolous if it consists of irrelevant and illogical arguments based
on factual misrepresentations and false premises, or when the result is obvious, or the
appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (directing dismissal of appeal if the court determines it is
frivolous). We deny Turner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal Without
Prepayment of Costs or Fees (Dkt. 15) for failure to show “the existence of a
4 Appellate Case: 25-3063 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2026 Page: 5
reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised
on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). Because
we hold that this action is frivolous, this counts as Turner’s second strike under
§ 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780
(10th Cir. 1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson,
575 U.S. 532 (2015). Turner is ordered to pay the filing fee in full immediately. See
Kinnell v. Graves, 265 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2001) (dismissal of an appeal does
not relieve prisoner’s responsibility to pay the full filing fee). We deny Turner’s
Motion to Add Documents to the Record (Dkt. 22).
Entered for the Court
Allison H. Eid Circuit Judge