Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03065/USCOURTS-ca10-08-03065-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leonardo Alvarez-Flores
Appellant
Jay Stanley Jones
Appellee

Document Text:

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 18, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

LEONARDO ALVAREZ-FLORES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAY STANLEY JONES, Orthopedic

Surgeon, in his official and individual

capacity,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 08-3065

(D.C. No. 5:05-CV-03261-CM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Leonardo Alvarez-Flores, an inmate incarcerated in the Kansas Department

of Corrections, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a

denial of adequate medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. He

Appellate Case: 08-3065 Document: 01015465429 Date Filed: 09/18/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

appeals pro se from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of all

defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We quote in full the substantive portion of Mr. Alvarez-Flores’s appeal

brief:

1. Statement of the Case. (This should be a brief summary of the

proceedings in the district court.) n/a

2. Statement of Facts Relevant to the Issues Presented for

Review. n/a

3. Statement of Issues.

a. First Issue: n/a

Argument and Authorities:

b. Second Issue: n/a

Argument and Authorities:

4. Do you think the district court applied the wrong law? If so,

what law do you want applied? n/a

5. Did the district court incorrectly decide the facts? If so, what

facts? n/a

6. Did the district court fail to consider important grounds for

relief? If so, what grounds? That I had 15 to 50 years on my

sentence and I’d have no possible way of paying restitution.

7. Do you feel that there are any other reasons why the district

court’s judgment was wrong? If so, what? n/a

8. What action do you want this court to take in your case?

dismiss any restitution fees.

9. Do you think the court should hear oral argument in this

case? If so, why? n/a

Aplt. Br. at 2-4.

Appellate Case: 08-3065 Document: 01015465429 Date Filed: 09/18/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

“Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally and

held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, this

court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure

that govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d

836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks

omitted). “Under [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure] 28, which applies

equally to pro se litigants, a brief must contain more than a generalized assertion

of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Id. at 841 (ellipsis and internal

quotation marks omitted). This court provides pro se litigants with a form to

guide them in presenting their appellate issues and arguments. When properly

completed, we accept this form in lieu of a formal brief. But perfunctory

allegations of error that fail to frame and develop an issue are insufficient to

invoke appellate review. See Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2

(10th Cir. 1994).

Mr. Alvarez-Flores submitted his brief using the pro se form, but he

answered “n/a” to all but two of the questions. We are unable to discern the

nature of his allegation of error from the remainder of his responses. He asserts

that this court should “dismiss any restitution fees,” Aplt. Br. at 4, yet the district

court did not enter a restitution order in this case. Even liberally construed, his

brief is “wholly inadequate to preserve issues for review” and we decline to

Appellate Case: 08-3065 Document: 01015465429 Date Filed: 09/18/2008 Page: 3 
-4-

exercise our discretion to “delve for substance” in it in order to consider his

appeal. Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion for

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the filing fee is DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 08-3065 Document: 01015465429 Date Filed: 09/18/2008 Page: 4