Pro Se Claims Must Satisfy Jurisdiction, Plausible Pleading, and Appellate Preservation Requirements

1. Introduction

This appeal concerned whether a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations of trafficking, wrongful prosecution, financial exploitation, and housing discrimination could proceed against private individuals, religious organizations, and federal agencies. The Tenth Circuit affirmed dismissal because the claims encountered distinct barriers involving federal jurisdiction, factual pleading, administrative prerequisites, and preservation of issues for appeal.

Akosua Aaebo-Akhan sued Kwesi Akhan, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Canaan Worship Center, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Journey Church International. Her complaint alleged lifelong sex and human trafficking and sought several forms of monetary and equitable relief.

The opinion’s account of those allegations is not a finding that the alleged events occurred. The court resolved the legal sufficiency and procedural availability of the claims, rather than conducting a trial on their underlying facts.

2. Background and Procedural History

Claims against the defendants

• Kwesi Akhan: Aaebo-Akhan alleged involuntary impregnation using his sperm, unsuccessful paternity and child-support proceedings in several states, defamation, and efforts to procure wrongful prosecution and civil commitment. She sought child-support arrears, tort damages, and punitive damages.
• Canaan Worship Center and Journey Church International: She sought refunds of allegedly forced donations and alleged trafficking, fraudulent religious fundraising, and misappropriation of intellectual property.
• IRS: She alleged that her earnings resulted from forced labor controlled by traffickers and sought refunds, with interest, of local, state, and federal taxes assessed from 1992 through 2025.
• HUD: She alleged that HUD refused to process appeals concerning cancellation of her Section 8 application voucher status. She sought monetary relief, punitive damages, and reinstatement of that status.

District-court proceedings

A magistrate judge screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and recommended dismissal. The recommendation identified different defects for different defendants:

• The Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal district-court review of the unsuccessful state proceedings involving Akhan. Alternatively, the defamation and malicious-prosecution allegations failed to state a claim.
• The claims against the churches lacked concrete allegations identifying fraudulent solicitations, reliance, or the intellectual property allegedly misappropriated.
• The allegations against the federal agencies failed to establish cognizable claims, an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity, or a basis for monetary damages.

The district court overruled Aaebo-Akhan’s objections, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the complaint. The Tenth Circuit exercised appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and decided the appeal without oral argument.

3. Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the entire judgment. Its analysis rested on four principal conclusions:

1. Federal district courts cannot function as appellate courts for state judgments. Aaebo-Akhan’s arguments concerning her unsuccessful paternity and child-support litigation reinforced the conclusion that she sought federal review of state-court outcomes.
2. Conclusory allegations do not establish a plausible claim. The allegations against the churches did not sufficiently identify actionable conduct.
3. Appeal is not the proper stage to introduce new claims or materially different theories. The court declined to consider newly advanced trafficking, racketeering, and IRS-compensation theories.
4. Claims against federal agencies require an available legal cause of action and compliance with applicable statutory conditions. The court relied on tax-related administrative prerequisites and the absence of a Fair Housing Act cause of action against HUD.

The panel also granted Aaebo-Akhan permission to proceed in forma pauperis and denied her remaining motions. Permission to proceed without prepaying fees did not establish that her claims were legally sufficient.

4. Analysis of the Precedents Cited

A. Liberal construction: Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janner

The court cited Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janner, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005), for the rule that courts liberally construe self-represented litigants’ filings but do not act as their advocates.

This principle frames the entire decision. Aaebo-Akhan’s submissions received a generous reading, but that did not require the court to invent missing factual allegations, supply unasserted statutory claims, or formulate a jurisdictional basis on her behalf. Liberal construction assists in understanding a pleading; it does not replace the litigant’s responsibility to present a legally viable case.

B. Screening and the pleading standard

Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007), supplied the standard of review: dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) receives de novo review, using the same standard applied to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), provided the substantive pleading requirement: the complaint must contain enough facts to state a facially plausible claim. Allegations must therefore do more than identify serious wrongdoing in general terms.

Johnson v. Reyna, 57 F.4th 769, 774 (10th Cir. 2023), required the court to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view them favorably to the plaintiff. In contrast, Morphew v. Chaffee Cnty., Colo., 172 F.4th 802, 813 (10th Cir. 2026), confirmed that legal conclusions and “mere labels and conclusions” do not receive that assumption of truth.

Together, these authorities explain why the court could take properly pleaded facts seriously while still dismissing the complaint. The question was not whether trafficking or exploitation can produce legal liability; it was whether this complaint supplied facts establishing viable claims against these particular defendants.

C. State judgments and federal jurisdiction

The opinion identified Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), as the sources of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Their role was jurisdictional: federal district courts cannot serve as appellate tribunals reviewing state-court judgments.

The panel relied directly on Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06 (1994), for the proposition that a losing state-court party cannot seek what is substantively appellate review in federal district court by asserting that the state judgment violated federal rights.

Aaebo-Akhan argued that her intellectual disability contributed to adverse outcomes in her state litigation. The panel understood that argument as confirming that she was challenging those outcomes themselves. Her asserted explanation for losing did not confer authority on the federal district court to reconsider the state judgments.

The reasoning should not be expanded into a rule that every federal action involving parties or events previously before a state court is barred. The operative concern here was the substance of the requested review. Although the opinion uses the language of “abstention,” its analysis treats the obstacle as a lack of district-court subject-matter jurisdiction.

D. New theories on appeal: Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Tr.

Lyons v. Jefferson Bank & Tr., 994 F.2d 716, 722 (10th Cir. 1993), supplied the principle that issues not passed upon below ordinarily will not be considered on appeal. This precedent performed repeated and decisive work.

• Aaebo-Akhan sought to characterize her claims involving Akhan as claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).
• She sought to characterize the churches as racketeering organizations and invoke civil RICO.
• She reframed the IRS claim as compensation measured by refunds allegedly received by traffickers, rather than the tax-refund relief described in the complaint.

The court declined to consider those newly presented theories. It acknowledged that 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) authorizes private trafficking claims and that 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) provides a civil RICO cause of action. Nevertheless, the existence of a potentially relevant statute did not permit the appellate court to decide a claim that had not been presented to the district court.

This was a preservation ruling, not a holding that trafficking victims can never recover under those statutes or that religious organizations are categorically outside RICO.

E. The limits of the Fair Housing Act: Godwin v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urb. Dev.

The panel cited Godwin v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 356 F.3d 310, 312 (D.C. Cir. 2004), for the proposition that the Fair Housing Act supplies no cause of action against HUD.

That authority answered a specific statutory question. Allegations of housing discrimination did not themselves establish an actionable Fair Housing Act claim against the federal agency. The opinion did not decide whether a properly pleaded challenge under some different legal framework could succeed.

5. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Jurisdiction, pleading, and preservation are separate requirements

The decision illustrates that a lawsuit must pass several independent legal thresholds. Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the court’s authority to adjudicate. Pleading sufficiency concerns whether the alleged facts establish an available claim. Appellate preservation concerns whether an issue was properly presented for review.

A litigant cannot cure one defect simply by addressing another. A serious factual allegation does not establish jurisdiction; a statutory label does not supply missing facts; and a potentially viable claim cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time on appeal.

B. The allegations against the churches lacked necessary factual content

The complaint failed to specify the allegedly fraudulent solicitations or what Aaebo-Akhan did in reliance on them. It also failed to identify the intellectual property allegedly appropriated. These omissions prevented the court from connecting the broad accusations to a viable legal claim.

The appellate court agreed that the allegations were conclusory. It did not resolve the truth of the organizations’ religious teachings, determine whether their activities were constitutionally protected, or adjudicate the merits of a properly pleaded trafficking or racketeering claim.

C. The IRS claims encountered statutory prerequisites

The court cited 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a), which requires a duly filed administrative refund claim before a tax-refund suit, and 26 U.S.C. § 7433(d)(1), which bars a damages judgment under that provision without exhaustion of available IRS administrative remedies.

The panel concluded that dismissal of the IRS claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper. It did not separately analyze whether every cited administrative requirement is independently jurisdictional. The careful takeaway is that Aaebo-Akhan had not established an available route to the requested judicial relief.

The opinion did not decide the substantive tax treatment of forced-labor income, whether she had overpaid any particular tax, or whether the IRS could be required to reimburse local or state taxes.

D. Federal-agency liability requires more than allegations of wrongdoing

The district court’s reasoning also emphasized sovereign immunity. A plaintiff seeking relief against a federal agency must identify a legal basis permitting the suit. For damages, the requested remedy must also fall within an applicable authorization.

The appellate court addressed the IRS through tax statutes and HUD through the absence of a Fair Housing Act cause of action. It also observed that Aaebo-Akhan had not pleaded a TVPRA claim against HUD. These are distinct defects: an available cause of action, a waiver of immunity, and satisfaction of statutory conditions are related but not interchangeable requirements.

6. Potential Impact and Limits

Because the order is nonprecedential, its prospective importance is primarily persuasive and practical.

• For self-represented litigants: Courts will read filings generously, but complaints must still identify specific conduct, an available claim, and a basis for federal jurisdiction.
• For litigation following state judgments: Recasting dissatisfaction with a state result as a federal-rights violation does not necessarily create an independent federal action.
• For trafficking and racketeering litigation: The relevant statutory claims should be presented in the district court, supported by facts connecting each defendant to the asserted liability.
• For suits against federal agencies: Identifying an alleged injury is not enough; plaintiffs must address the legal authority for suit and applicable administrative requirements.
• For appellate practice: A materially new theory is not necessarily a permissible clarification of an existing claim. Appeals principally review the case presented below.

The decision does not establish categorical immunity for alleged traffickers, churches, or federal agencies. Nor does it determine that Aaebo-Akhan’s underlying allegations were false. Its holding concerns the claims and procedural record actually before the court.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

Pro se

Representing oneself without a lawyer. Courts read such filings generously but do not become the litigant’s lawyer.

De novo review

The appellate court independently evaluates the legal issue without deferring to the district court’s conclusion.

Facial plausibility

The complaint contains enough concrete facts to support a reasonable inference of legal liability, rather than merely asserting wrongdoing.

Subject-matter jurisdiction

The court’s legal authority to decide the type of dispute presented.

Rooker-Feldman doctrine

A restriction preventing federal district courts from effectively hearing appeals from state-court judgments.

Administrative exhaustion

Using required agency procedures before seeking the judicial remedy governed by those procedures.

Sovereign immunity

The principle that the federal government generally cannot be sued without legal authorization permitting the suit.

Cause of action

A legally recognized basis for asking a court to provide a remedy against a particular defendant.

Appellate preservation

Presenting an issue in the lower court so that it can ordinarily be considered on appeal.

Nonprecedential judgment

A decision that may persuade other courts but generally does not bind them as circuit precedent. Its effects on the parties may still be governed by law of the case and claim- or issue-preclusion principles.

8. Conclusion

Aaebo-Akhan v. Akhan applies established limits on federal adjudication: courts require jurisdiction, factually sufficient claims, compliance with applicable statutory conditions, and preservation of issues for appeal. Self-represented status does not eliminate those requirements.

The decision’s central significance is procedural rather than substantive. It affirms dismissal of the claims presented without resolving the truth of the trafficking allegations or announcing a new binding restriction on trafficking, housing, tax, or racketeering litigation.