Alberta Rose Jones, and those similarly situated v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ALBERTA ROSE JONES, and those
similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General of the United States; DAVID
PRATER, individual capacity; TIMOTHY
HENDERSON, individual capacity;
ROBERT RAVITZ, individual capacity;
CINDY FERRELL ASHWOOD,
individual capacity; ALLEN BROWN,
individual capacity; LORI MCCONNELL,
individual capacity; ROBERT GROSHON;
DOES 1 THRU 100,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-6189
(D.C. No. 5:19-CV-01056-G)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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
October 4, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-6189 Document: 010110585417 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Alberta Rose Josephine Jones—proceeding pro se on behalf of her incarcerated
son—appeals the district court’s order sua sponte dismissing her case without prejudice
for lack of standing and failure to comply with the district court’s orders. Because the
district court correctly concluded that Jones lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of
her son, we affirm.1
BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2019, Alberta Rose Josephine Jones filed a pro se lawsuit against
110 defendants—the primary defendant being the United States Attorney General—in the
Oklahoma County District Court.2 In her complaint, Ms. Jones alleges several people
violated her son’s constitutional rights while he was imprisoned in Oklahoma County.
Jones, however, does not list her son as a party to the lawsuit—only herself and “those
similarly situated.” On November 15, 2019, the Attorney General removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Jones has filed similar lawsuits in the district court in the past. Each was dismissed
for lack of standing to pursue constitutional claims on another’s behalf. Eventually, the
district court imposed a filing restriction on Jones, requiring that she obtain the court’s
permission to file lawsuits pro se.
1 Because Jones appears pro se, we construe her pleadings and briefing liberally,
but we will not advocate on her behalf. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th
Cir. 2013).
2 At the time the lawsuit was filed, Attorney General William Barr was named as a
Defendant. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has now taken his place and is the
primary named defendant.
Appellate Case: 20-6189 Document: 010110585417 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

3
On August 10, 2020, the district court instructed Ms. Jones to acquire a lawyer
within thirty days. Over ninety days later, Ms. Jones still had failed to do so. Thus, on
November 17, 2020, the district court sua sponte dismissed her lawsuit without prejudice
for lack of standing and failure to comply with the district court’s orders instructing her
to acquire counsel. Jones filed a timely notice of appeal on a final decision from the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, granting this court
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
DISCUSSION
The district court dismissed Jones’s claims on behalf of her son under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).3 We review de novo. VR Acquisitions, LLC v. Wasatch
Cnty., 853 F.3d 1142, 1145 (10th Cir. 2017). Under Article III of the United States
Constitution, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction only over genuine “cases and
controversies.” Wilderness Soc’y v. Kane Cnty., Utah, 632 F.3d 1162, 1168 (10th Cir.
2011) (en banc). Apart from Article III’s requirements, courts also consider prudential
standing, a doctrine of “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal
jurisdiction.” Id. (cleaned up). “The prudential standing doctrine encompasses various
limitations, including the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal
rights.” Id. (cleaned up); accord McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 429 (1961)
(“Since the general rule is that a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or
3 Because the court ultimately affirms on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds, it need not reach
any other grounds for dismissal.
Appellate Case: 20-6189 Document: 010110585417 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
immunities, we hold that appellants have no standing to raise this contention.”) (cleaned
up).
Jones seeks relief for alleged constitutional injuries suffered by her son.4 As a
result, she lacks prudential standing, permitting the district court to dismiss her claims on
12(b)(6) grounds without prejudice. N. Mill St., LLC v. City of Aspen, 6 F.4th 1216, 1230
(10th Cir. 2021) (collecting cases). Because Jones lacks prudential standing, the court
need not reach the remaining issues. Wasatch Cnty., 853 F.3d at 1146 n.3 (“Because
plaintiff lacks prudential standing, we proceed directly to that issue” (cleaned up)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Jones’s Complaint
without prejudice. We remind her that she risks facing sanctions if she continues to raise
claims on behalf of others without acquiring counsel.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
4 Ms. Jones argues, in her reply brief, that she has also alleged her own damage,
not merely her son’s. But she cannot use her own emotional distress from her son’s
alleged treatment to circumvent the standing requirement that a pro se litigant may bring
constitutional claims only on behalf of oneself.
Appellate Case: 20-6189 Document: 010110585417 Date Filed: 10/04/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --