UNITED STATES COURT 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 COLORADO; 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 custody of the Colorado Department of 

Corrections, filed an amended pro se complaint against numerous defendants. The 

complaint alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities 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 expanded 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 submitted for decision on the briefs. 

This order and judgment is an unpublished decision, not binding precedent. 10th 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 the 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 Center and the Arapahoe 

County Sherriff’s Department, and approximately eight unknown employees of those 

entities. According to Banks his mistreatment began in May 2009, when he was allegedly 

illegally arrested in Lakewood, Colorado. The mistreatment continued through 2010 

with numerous instances of allegedly illegal and unconstitutional treatment while he was 

housed in different detention facilities. His handwritten, single-spaced, 28-page 

complaint failed to connect his claims to his narrative and the majority of the named 

defendants to his claims. He simultaneously moved for appointment of counsel. 

 On November 8, 2012, a magistrate judge determined the complaint did not 

comply with Rule 8 and required Banks to file an amended complaint within 30 days. 

The order warned that if his complaint failed to comply 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 and 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 responsibility 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 specific rights allegedly violated and the 

specific acts of each Defendant that allegedly violated his rights . . . . [T]he 

Court does not require a long, chronological recitation of facts. Nor should 

the Court or Defendants be required to sift through Mr. Banks’ verbose 

allegations to determine which allegations go with which claims. The 

general rule that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally has limits and 

the Court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s 

attorney in constructing arguments 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 injunction 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 dismisses a case without prejudice, it need not 

follow any specific procedure because 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 pleader 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 incomprehensible. On appeal, he disputes the trial judge’s 

characterization of his complaint as “unnecessarily verbose and disorganized,” but he 

does not explain how the judge was to decipher the myriad allegations and the mix of 

defendants. Indeed, his brief on appeal discusses his claims against yet another defendant 

which he concedes he cannot bring at this time. Our liberal construction of pro se filings 

does not authorize the court to “assume 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 with 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 defendant; (2) the amount of interference with the 

judicial process; (3) the culpability of the litigant; (4) whether the court warned the party 

in advance that dismissal of the action would 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 limitations may have run on 

his § 1983 claim. But he neither raised a statute of limitations problem 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 raise 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 opening 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).