Miller v. Mitchell

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
MARQUISE MILLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUZANNE MITCHELL, Magistrate
Judge, in her individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 26-6038
(D.C. No. 5:25-CV-00535-SWS)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Marquise Miller appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of
his complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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

August 17, 2026

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 26-6038 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026 Page: 1

2

for failure to state a claim. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
1

Miller initiated this case by filing a pro se complaint against United
States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell after she ordered him to attend
a discovery conference in her court and under her supervision in a separate
lawsuit. Judge Mitchell issued this order pursuant to Chief Judge Timothy
DeGiusti’s
2
order directing the parties to meet and confer at William J.
Holloway United States Courthouse “under the supervision of United States
Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell.” Miller v. Legacy Bank, Doc. 226 at 7,
No. 20-cv-946 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 04, 2023). Miller’s complaint listed several
claims, the gist of which was his assertion that Judge Mitchell lacked legal
authority to order him to attend the discovery conference.

1
Judge Mitchell argues that we should dismiss the appeal for failure
to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) and a
resultant lack of jurisdiction. Having reviewed Miller’s timely filed Notice
of Appeal, we are satisfied that it “provides sufficient notice” to Magistrate
Judge Mitchell and this court and thus encompasses “the functional
equivalent of what” Rule 3(c) requires. Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248
(1992); see also Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(7). Miller’s NOA attached the district
court’s final order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment and
motion for relief from judgment, providing notice that his appeal concerned
the judgment of dismissal with prejudice of his case on grounds of absolute
judicial immunity encompassed in the attached order and in the district
court’s dismissal order under Rule 12(b)(6). Thus, jurisdiction is proper.
2
Chief Judge DiGiusti was the district judge presiding over the
separate lawsuit.
Appellate Case: 26-6038 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026 Page: 2

3

The district court granted Judge Mitchell’s motion to dismiss, holding
that Judge Mitchell’s absolute judicial immunity from liability regarding
her judicial acts barred Miller’s claims. The district court reasoned that
Judge Mitchell had jurisdiction over the parties in the separate lawsuit
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) because Chief Judge DeGiusti designated her
to “hear and determine” discovery disputes “pending before [his] court,” and
that Judge Mitchell’s order directing the parties to attend the discovery
conference was a judicial act. The district court then dismissed Miller’s
complaint with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile given
Judge Mitchell’s absolute judicial immunity. The district court entered
judgment against Miller on November 24, 2025.
Miller then filed a combined motion to alter or amend judgment and
for relief from judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
60(b), which the district court denied. The district court reasoned that
Miller’s motion did not discuss any “matters properly raised or supported
under either Rules 59(e) or 60(b).” R. I at 285. This timely appeal followed.
We review “a district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint for
failure to state a claim” de novo. Brokers’ Choice of America, Inc. v. NBC
Universal, Inc., 861 F.3d 1081, 1104 (10th Cir. 2017). We review a district
court’s ruling on Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion.
See Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 845 F.3d 997,
Appellate Case: 26-6038 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026 Page: 3

4

1004 (10th Cir. 2017); Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 145
F.4th 1279, 1282 (10th Cir. 2025).
On appeal, Miller again challenges Judge Mitchell’s legal authority to
compel him to attend the discovery conference and asserts the district court
erred by finding that she is entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Having
reviewed the record, including the district court’s orders, and the parties’
contentions on appeal, we affirm the dismissal of Miller’s complaint for
substantially the same reasons given by the district court.
3

AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico
Circuit Judge

3
Miller provides no argument as to how the district court erred in
disposing of his motion to alter and amend the judgment and motion for
relief from judgment, so he has waived any argument for reversal as to that
decision. See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir.
2015) (An appellant must “explain what was wrong with the reasoning that
the district court relied on in reaching its decision.”).
Appellate Case: 26-6038 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026 Page: 4