Reeves v. Seibert

── Reeves v. Seibert ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-5073 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 28, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WADE REEVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-5073 (D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00431-SEH-SH) APRIL SEIBERT; TODD CHESBRO; (N.D. Okla.) DEBORRAH LUDI LEITCH; KENNETH HARA; BIRGIT FLADAGER; ROB BONTA; PATRICIA GUERRERO; GAVIN NEWSOM; STEVE KUNZWEILER; GENTNER DRUMMOND; M. JOHN KANE, IV, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-5073 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 Plaintiff Wade Reeves, appearing pro se, filed an action in federal district court alleging constitutional violations by state officials in California and Oklahoma relating to child support proceedings in those states. The district court dismissed his complaint and later denied his motion for relief from the judgment and for leave to amend his complaint. Mr. Reeves now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 1 I This case arises from proceedings in California that resulted in child support orders against Mr. Reeves that are now being enforced in Oklahoma. He sued California and Oklahoma officials in the Northern District of Oklahoma for alleged constitutional violations and sought injunctive and declaratory relief. In response to the complaint, the defendants filed motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motions, holding that the complaint did not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). It therefore dismissed the case without prejudice and closed the case. It further concluded its dismissal of the complaint rendered all other pending motions moot. 1 We liberally construe his pro se pleadings, but we do not act as his advocate. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 2  Appellate Case: 25-5073 Document: 58-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 Two weeks after the district court’s order, Reeves filed an amended complaint, which the district court struck from the docket because Reeves had not obtained leave to file it. He then filed a motion seeking relief from the judgment, requesting that the court reopen the case, grant leave to file the amended compl