Jay Steven Heide v. Jan Satterfield

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
JAY STEVEN HEIDE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAN SATTERFIELD; CHARLES HART;
CHERYL M. PIERCE; BRITTANY MAE
TOPPER; BOB ALBERT; (LNU) (FNU)
(1); (LNU) (FNU) (2),
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 21-3129
(D.C. No. 5:21-CV-03111-SAC)
(D. Kan.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pro se Kansas prisoner Jay Steven Heide brought an action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against individuals who were involved in his criminal case—two state judges, a
county prosecutor, an investigator, and the victim and her parents. He alleged wrongful
incarceration and abuse from other inmates and prison staff.
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent,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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 16, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-3129 Document: 010110577261 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered a
Memorandum and Order to Show Cause (the “MOSC”). It said the claims were subject
to dismissal as to (1) the judges based on judicial immunity; (2) the prosecutor based on
prosecutorial immunity; (3) the victim and her parents because they did not act under
color of state law, as § 1983 requires; and (4) the investigator because Mr. Heide’s civil
rights claim, if successful, would imply the invalidity of his criminal conviction, which is
barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ROA at 56-57.
The MOSC directed Mr. Heide to show cause why his complaint should not be
dismissed for these reasons. He filed two responses. The district court said they did “not
address the deficiencies set forth in the MOSC.” Id. at 57. It dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim, id. at 61, and subsequently denied Mr. Heide’s motion for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), id. at 111.
On appeal, Mr. Heide has filed a brief and a supplemental brief. Although we
construe his pro se filings liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), we
are not required to “fashion . . . arguments for him,” United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d
1144, 1147 (10th Cir. 1994), nor are we to “assume the role of advocate,” Yang v.
Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see also United
States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009).
As a general rule, a party’s failure to address an issue in the opening brief
constitutes waiver of the issue. See Wyoming v. Livingston, 443 F.3d 1211, 1216 (10th
Cir. 2006) (“Wyoming did not address this issue in its opening appellate brief. The issue
Appellate Case: 21-3129 Document: 010110577261 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
is therefore waived.”); accord LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank, 374 F.3d 917, 927
n.10 (10th Cir. 2004). This rule applies equally to pro se litigants. See Toevs v. Reid, 685
F.3d 903, 911 (10th Cir. 2012).
Mr. Heide’s briefs fail to address the reasons why the district court dismissed the
complaint or why this court should reverse. He thus has waived the opportunity to
contest the district court’s dismissal or its denial of his motion to reconsider on appeal.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. We also deny Mr.
Heide’s pending motions for release, to appoint counsel, to grant an appeal bond, and to
drop charges.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-3129 Document: 010110577261 Date Filed: 09/16/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --