Brett Andrew: House of Nelson v. Daniel Austin Walzl/state of Colorado

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
BRETT ANDREW: HOUSE OF
NELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DANIEL AUSTIN WALZL/STATE OF
COLORADO,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-1425
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01012-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant brought this action in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado seeking to confirm an alleged $6,898,000 arbitration award
against Defendant under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court dismissed the
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirmed. See Nelson v. Walzl,
829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir. 2020).
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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.
** 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.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 27, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1425 Document: 010110471420 Date Filed: 01/27/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Less than two months later, Plaintiff filed three post-judgment motions, each of
which the district court denied. This appeal follows, but Plaintiff merely reiterates the
same arguments we rejected in his prior appeal to this court. See id. That is, Plaintiff
alleges the district court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
because, by his argument, subject matter jurisdiction is provided for in 9 U.S.C. § 9.
Plaintiff presents no new arguments, facts, or law. Because we thoroughly
addressed and rejected his contentions in Nelson v. Walzl, 829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir.
2020), we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Exercising jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1425 Document: 010110471420 Date Filed: 01/27/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --