Nelson v. Walzl, No. 20-1425 (10th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ BRETT ANDREW: HOUSE OF NELSON, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 27, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL AUSTIN WALZL/STATE OF COLORADO, No. 20-1425 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01012-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Pro se Plaintiff-Appellant brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado seeking to confirm an alleged $6,898,000 arbitration award against Defendant under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and we affirmed. See Nelson v. Walzl, 829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir. 2020). * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Less than two months later, Plaintiff filed three post-judgment motions, each of which the district court denied. This appeal follows, but Plaintiff merely reiterates the same arguments we rejected in his prior appeal to this court. See id. That is, Plaintiff alleges the district court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because, by his argument, subject matter jurisdiction is provided for in 9 U.S.C. § 9. Plaintiff presents no new arguments, facts, or law. Because we thoroughly addressed and rejected his contentions in Nelson v. Walzl, 829 F. App’x 872 (10th Cir. 2020), we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED. Entered for the Court Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
