Yonnas Sey Fu Parker v. Cathy Anderson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
YONNAS SEY FU PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CATHY ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-2090
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00016-KG-KK)
(D. N.M.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Representing himself, Yonnas Sey Fu Parker appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his lawsuit. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Mr. Parker’s complaint referred to Social Security disability benefits, but he
used the court’s form for civil rights suits. The district court issued two orders
discussing why his complaint was insufficient and directing him to explain his
claims, but he did not respond. The district court thus dismissed the suit.
* After examining the brief 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 24, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-2090 Document: 010110484686 Date Filed: 02/24/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
On appeal, Mr. Parker’s opening brief asserts “Social Security Disability” as
the entire Statement of the Case, and “PTSD, Injured to a limb on my body[,] Broken
Knee, Lacerations to body” as the entire Statement of Facts. Opening Br. at 2. The
only other information in the brief is a request that this court “Correct Social Security
Decision.” Id. at 4.
“The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s
decision was wrong.” Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366
(10th Cir. 2015). When people represent themselves, we read their filings liberally.
See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
But “the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in
constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. Mr. Parker’s opening brief
does not discuss why the district court dismissed his suit or otherwise present any
issues for us to consider, and we cannot act as his attorney by searching for reasons
to reverse the district court’s judgment. We therefore have no choice but to affirm
the dismissal of the suit.
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-2090 Document: 010110484686 Date Filed: 02/24/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --