UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

TORREY V. BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER JOHN DOE, (Supervisor) Lakewood Police Dept.; OFFICER JANE DOE, Lakewood Police Dept.; OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, Lakewood Police Dept.); OFFICER JOHN DOE #2, Lakewood Police Dept.; CITY OF LAKEWOOD; ARAPAHOE COUNTY; CHIEF WALCHER of A.C.S.O; LIEUTENANT KNIGHT, of A.C.S.O.; SUPERVISOR SHEILA CLARK, of A.C.S.O.; JANE DOE, A.C.S.O. (Psychology Dept.); DEPUTY KRAUS, of A.C.S.O. (Disciplinary Board Member); DEPUTY JOHN DOE #1, (Disciplinary Board Member); DEPUTY JOHN DOE #2, of A.C.S.O. (Disciplinary Board Member); DEPUTY BENDICRAFT, of A.C.S.O.; ERIN LIBRARIAN, A.C.S.O. (Employee); STATE OF COLORA DO; RON WAGER, CDOC (Assistant Warden); A. MEDINA, CDOC (Warden and Deputy Director); CAPTAIN KATZENMEYER, of CDOC; C/M III S. ORTIZ, of CDOC (Ad Seg Hearings Officer); C/M CHAVEZ, of CDOC (Ad Seg Hearings Officer); C/M BRANDT, of CDOC (Ad Seg Hearings Officer); LT. LAWSON, of CDOC (Disciplinary Hearings Officer); JERRY SCOLLARD, CDOC (Acting Mental Health Supervisor); STEPHANIE ENGLAR, CDOC (Contract Worker); C/O YVETTE MAES, of CDOC; CAPTAIN DIANE QUATTLEBAUM, of CDOC; C/O No. 13-1091 (D.C. No. 1:12 -CV-02014-LTB) (D. Colo.) FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 25, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - HOLMES, of CDOC; C/O KEN DUNDER, of CDOC; C/O LEIA ESTRADA, of CDOC; LT. PETER ANDERSON, of CDOC (Disciplinary Hearing Officer); JACQUELINE MCCALL, CDOD (Administrative Head); C/O JENNIFER MALEBRANCHE, of CDOC, Defendants – Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , O'BRIEN , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Torrey Banks, an inmate in the cust ody of the Colorado Department of Corrections, filed an amended pro se comp laint against numerous defendants. The complaint alleged deprivations of his c onstitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of the Americans with Disab ilities Act. He was required to amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After several extensions of time, Banks filed an e xpanded amended complaint which the court sua

* The parties have waived oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is submitte d for decision on the briefs. This order and judgment is an unpublishe d decision, not binding precedent. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to unpublished decisions is not prohibited. Fed. R. App. 32.1. It is appropriate as it relates to law of th e case, issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Unpublished decisions may also be cited for their persuasive value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to an order and judgment must be accompanied by an appropriate parenthetical notation

B (unpublished). Id

.- 3 - sponte dismissed without prejudice because, like the original amended complaint, it failed to comply with Rule 8. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Banks filed his lawsuit on August 1, 2012, against the City of Lakewood, Colorado, various employees of the Arapahoe County Detention Cent er and the Arapahoe County Sherriff’s Department, and approxima tely eight unknown employees of those entities. According to Banks hi s mistreatment began in May 2009, when he was allegedly illegally arrested in Lakewood, Colorado. The mistreatment con tinued through 2010 with numerous instances of allegedly illega l and unconstitutional treatment while he was housed in different detention facilities. His handwritten, single-spaced, 28-page complaint failed to connect hi s claims to his narrative and the majority of the named defendants to his claims. He simultaneous ly moved for appointm ent of counsel. On November 8, 2012, a magistrate judge determined the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 an d required Banks to file an amen ded complaint within 30 days. The order warned that if his co mplaint failed to comp ly with Rule 8, his claims would be dismissed. His motion for appointment of counsel was denied. After several extensions of time and interspersed motions for a preliminary injunction and reconsideration of the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, Banks filed his amended complaint on February 5, 2013. It was no better than the first. To the contrary, it had expanded to 91 pages with over 30 defendants and alleged new claims occurring through December 2012. The court dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice, explaining:- 4 - Mr. Banks’ unnecessarily verbose a nd disorganized amended complaint violates the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The amended complaint fails to provide a generalized statement of the facts from which a defendant may form a responsive pleading. . . . Mr. Banks has failed to meet his respon sibility to present his claims in a manageable and readable format that allows the Court and Defendants to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to those claims. He also has failed to allege – simply and concisely – his specific claims for relief, including the specif ic rights allegedly violated and the specific acts of each Defendant that allege dly violated his rights . . . . [T]he Court does not require a long, chronolo gical recitation of facts. Nor should the Court or Defendants be required to sift through Mr. Banks’ verbose allegations to determine which alle gations go with which claims. The general rule that pro se pleadings must be construe d liberally has limits and the Court cannot take on the respons ibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing argume nts and searching the record. (R. at 242-43 (citations and quotation marks omitted)). Banks’s motion for reconsideration was denied as was his request to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). He appeals from the dismissal of his claims and the denials of his motions for a preliminary inj unction and appointment of counsel. He has petitioned this court to waive prepayment of fees, which would effectively void the district court’s decision on the issue. II. DISCUSSION “We review dismissals under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe Cnty. Justice Ctr. , 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir.2007). Generally, if a district court di smisses a case without prejudice, it need not follow any specific procedure beca use the plaintiff retains the ability to refile his or her- 5 - case. 1 Id. at 1162. Rule 8 requires, among other things, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pl eader is entitled to relief” and the relief sought. Banks’s amended complaint utterly fails to meet the Rule 8 requirements and at times is almost incomprehe nsible. On appeal, he disputes the trial judge’s characterization of his complaint as “unnece ssarily verbose and disorganized,” but he does not explain how the judge was to deciphe r the myriad allegations and the mix of defendants. Indeed, his brief on appeal discu sses his claims against yet another defendant which he concedes he cannot bring at this time . Our liberal construc tion of pro se filings does not authorize the court to “a ssume the role of advocate.” Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). “ Pro se status ‘does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply w ith the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.’” Id . (quoting Ogden v. San Juan Cnty. ,

1 If, however, a district court dismisses a case with prejudice, “it must first consider certain criteria.” Nasious , 492 F.3d at 1162. “[T]hese criteria include (1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendan t; (2) the amount of in terference with the judicial process; (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the c ourt warned the party in advance that dismissal of the action woul d be a likely sanction for noncompliance; and (5) the efficacy of lesser sanctions.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). If Banks refiles his complaint, the two-year statute of limitati ons may have run on his § 1983 claim. But he neither raised a st atute of limitations pr oblem in the district court nor does he raise it on appeal. We may not abandon our rules and act as an advocate for a pro se appellant. See Yang v. Archuleta , 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Banks’s failure to rais e a statute of limitations argument with this court waives the issue even under plain error review. See United States v. Bader , 678 F.3d 858, 894 (10th Cir.) (insufficient argument in op ening brief waived issue on appeal), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 335 (2012); see also United States v. Bowling , 619 F.3d 1175, 1181 n.1 (10th Cir. 2010) (arguments not raised in opening brief are waived).- 6 - 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994)). Banks has failed to make a case for abuse of discretion. Under our deferential review of dismissals without prejudice Banks has identified no reason justifying reversal. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Banks’s claims without prejudice and DENY his motion to appeal without prepayment of fees . All unpaid filing and docketing fees are due and payable to the Clerk of the District Court. If they are not immediately paid, Banks must continue making periodic payments until they are paid in full. 2 Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien United States Circuit Judge

2 Our consideration of the merits of Banks ’s appeal does not relieve him of the responsibility to pay the appellate filing fee in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).