Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01200/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Contes
Appellee
Rick Raemisch
Appellee
Scott A. Sollis
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

SCOTT A. SOLLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICK RAEMISCH; LT. CONTES,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1200

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00325-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Mr. Scott Solis is a Colorado prisoner. Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

he sued for failure to provide a required assessment, communication of

misinformation, and refusal to provide a protective custody form or a full

report on custody issues. The district court summarily dismissed the

claims, reasoning that the allegations would not constitute a violation of

* Oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Thus, we

have decided the appeal based on the briefs.

Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral

estoppel. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Appellate Case: 16-1200 Document: 01019684810 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 1 
the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Solis appeals, arguing that he asserted

claims for denial of due process and equal protection rather than

violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

In the amended complaint, Mr. Solis based his claims on a denial of

due process and equal protection. We may assume, for the sake of

argument, that the district court erred in treating the claims as if they had

been based on the Eighth Amendment. With this assumption, however, we

would need to determine whether the due process and equal protection

claims would have been frivolous. In our view, they would have been.

For a due process claim, Mr. Solis had to plead facts that would

have plausibly alleged an atypical and significant hardship in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life. Gee v. Pacheco, 627 F.3d 1178,

1193-94 (10th Cir. 2010). Changes in classification would not ordinarily

suffice as an atypical and significant hardship. Templeman v. Gunter, 16

F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir. 1994). But there is nothing else to suggest an

atypical and significant hardship on Mr. Solis in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life. As a result, the due process claim is frivolous.

Mr. Solis also asserts a denial of equal protection. But he does not

say how he was treated differently than anyone else. As a result, the

equal protection claim is frivolous. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252,

1260-61 (10th Cir. 2006).

2

Appellate Case: 16-1200 Document: 01019684810 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 2 
Because the due process and equal protection claims were

frivolous, we affirm the dismissal.

Mr. Solis not only appeals but also requests leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. We grant the request because Mr. Solis is unable to

afford the filing fee. 1

 As a result, we excuse Mr. Solis from prepaying the

filing fee. But leave to proceed in forma pauperis does not relieve Mr.

Solis of his ultimate obligation to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach

Circuit Judge

1 We have the discretion to deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis

when someone lacks good faith to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). As

discussed in the text, Mr. Solis’s claims in district court were frivolous.

But we do not question Mr. Solis’s good faith in bringing the appeal. In

the amended complaint, Mr. Solis invoked the rights to due process and

equal protection, not the Eighth Amendment. Without legal

representation or a legal education, Mr. Solis could legitimately question

summary dismissal of the amended complaint on a theory that he had not

invoked in the amended complaint.

3

Appellate Case: 16-1200 Document: 01019684810 Date Filed: 09/08/2016 Page: 3