Bulock V Riesen
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TAMEKA-MARIE BULOCK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-744-SLP
)
THOMAS RIESEN, et al., )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 5] against the following
individuals: Thomas Riesen, Elisabeth Kerr, Randy Wisner and Aron Mares. She identifies
the basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction as the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment. See id. at 3.1 She does not include any allegations under the “Statement of
the Claim” section of the Complaint. Nor does she include any request for relief. She
attaches what purports to be a filing in the “State Court of Oklahoma County, State of
Oklahoma” but fails to reference the attachment in her Complaint. Finally, on her civil
cover sheet, she identifies as the “U.S. Civil Statute under which [she] is filing” as 18
U.S.C. § 241. See Doc. No. 5-1.
To assess whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, courts apply the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
1 Plaintiff did not sign the original Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. The Court directed Plaintiff to refile
the Complaint to comply with Rule 11(a), see Order [Doc. No. 4], and Plaintiff then resubmitted
the Complaint. The two documents are substantially similar but not identical. Because Plaintiff
appears pro se, the Court liberally construes her filings and considers the two submissions together
as the operative Complaint.
Procedure. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). A complaint must contain
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
While “a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, . . . the court cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments.” Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Additionally, Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint
to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . .;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;
and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 “does not require
detailed factual allegations, . . . [but] it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Pro se litigants are not excused from meeting these minimal pleading
requirements. “This is so because a pro se plaintiff requires no special legal training to
recount the facts surrounding his alleged injury, and he must provide such facts if the court
is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which relief can be granted.” Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “If a complaint fails to meet these basic
pleading requirements, a district court may dismiss the action sua sponte for failure to
comply with Rule 8.” Rodriguez v. Nationwide Homes, Inc., 756 F. App’x 782, 785 (10th
Cir. 2018) (citing Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161, n. 2 (10th
Cir. 2007)).
Here, the Complaint fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiff fails
to identify with any clarity the factual or legal bases for her claim(s). To the extent Plaintiff
invokes 18 U.S.C. § 241, any claim under that statute must be dismissed because it is a
criminal statute. See Semper v. Bessent, No. 25-4022, 2025 WL 2046427 at *3 (10th Cir.
July 22, 2025) (affirming district court’s dismissal of claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 because
it is a criminal statute that “do[es] not provide a private cause of action’’). Accordingly, the
Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint [Doc. Nos. 1 and 5] 1s
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within
21 days of the date of this Order, or by August 13, 2025. If no amendment is filed, this
action will be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2025.
SCOTT L, PALK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE