UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

SCOTT B. SULLIVAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN M. GRAHAM, JR.; MELINDA 

YOUNG; DAVID CLYMER; 

CARONDELET ORTHOPAEDIC 

SURGEONS; EDWARD PROSTIC; 

DR. PROSTIC’S PRACTICE; JOHNSON 

COUNTY IMAGING RADIOLOGIST; 

JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; 

STEVEN G. PILAND; THE STEVEN G. 

PILAND LAW FIRM; MATTHEW 

BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM OF BRETZ & 

YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; ELLIOT LAW 

FIRM; KENNETH HURSH; JERRY 

SHELOR; THE LAW FIRM OF 

MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE AND 

PHILLIPS; GREG GOHEEN, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

SCOTT B. SULLIVAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL 

SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HONORABLE 

LAWTON NUSS; CAROL MORRIS; 

HONORABLE PAUL GURNEY; 

LADUSKA ANNE HANEY; ZEKE 

DELGADO; MIKE FISKE; TWIN CITIES 

No. 23-3153

(D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02319-SRB)

(D. Kan.)

No. 23-3154

(D.C. No. 2:22-CV-02491-SRB)

(D. Kan.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 17, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 1
2

FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY; UNITED 

STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY; UNKNOWN 

DEFENDANTS; CONCENTRA; 

TEGUMSEN WAKWAYA; PREMIER 

SPINE CARE; JOHN CICCARELLI; 

AMY SLESKY; ST. LUKE’S SOUTH 

PRIMARY CARE; STEPHEN NOLKER; 

DAVID CYMER; EDWARD PROSTIC; 

JOHNSON COUNTY IMAGING; JOHN 

M. GRAHAM, JR.; THE STEVEN G. 

PILAND LAW FIRM; STEVEN G. 

PILAND; MELINDA YOUNG; 

MATTHEW L. BRETZ; THE LAW FIRM 

OF BRETZ & YOUNG; TIM ELLIOT; 

THE TIM ELLIOT LAW FIRM; GREG 

GOHEEN; DARRYL WYNN; JODI FOX; 

HONORABLE KENNETH HURSH; 

HONORABLE JERRY SHELOR; 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS; 

HONORABLE KATHERYN VRATIL; 

HONORABLE ANGEL D. MITCHELL; 

NEBRASKA FURNITURE MART; 

HONORABLE KEVIN MORIARTY; 

ONFORCE; WORKMART; 

HONORABLE THERESA JAMES; 

HONORABLE RACHEL SCHWARTZ; 

HONORABLE JULIE A. ROBINSON; 

MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & 

PHILLIPS, P.A.; HONORABLE LEE 

JOHNSON, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

* 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. This order and judgment is not binding 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 2
3

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Scott Sullivan, proceeding pro se,1 brings two appeals challenging the 

dismissals of his complaints against more than forty defendants alleging conspiracy, 

fraud, and other similar claims related to an injury he sustained in 2012. We have 

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

These appeals are another chapter in what we have previously described as 

“Mr. Sullivan’s wide-ranging litigation efforts relating to a workplace injury in 

January 2012.” Sullivan v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., Nos. 22-3118 & 22-3193, 

2023 WL 4635888, at *1 (10th Cir. July 20, 2023) (affirming dismissal of “two 

lawsuits against numerous defendants, whom he claims conspired against him to 

deny medical treatment”). Although Mr. Sullivan’s arguments on appeal of each of 

his cases are substantially identical, it is somewhat difficult to parse the different 

legal claims he raised in each of his cases. Before turning to his appellate arguments, 

we set forth the similar procedural history of each case based on our careful review 

of the record. 

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.

1 Because Mr. Sullivan proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, 

but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing 

arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 

425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 3
4

BACKGROUND

I. 23-3153

Mr. Sullivan filed a 93-page pro se complaint in August 2022. The defendants 

filed motions to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The court denied the motions without prejudice and ordered 

Mr. Sullivan to file an amended complaint more clearly delineating the actual claims 

he was asserting. The court further stated a compliant amended complaint “likely 

does not need to exceed forty pages.” R. (23-3153) at 317. 

Mr. Sullivan twice moved for, and received, extensions of time to file his amended 

complaint, which he filed in June 2023. The amended complaint was over 177 pages and 

added several additional defendants. The court dismissed the additional named parties 

and directed Mr. Sullivan “to file a Second Amended Complaint that shall not exceed 

fifty pages.” Id. at 817. On the deadline to file this pleading, Mr. Sullivan filed a motion 

to exceed the page limitations along with his proposed second amended complaint which 

was 105 pages in length. 

The district court denied Mr. Sullivan’s motion to exceed page limitations. 

The court further concluded that, notwithstanding the liberal construction owed to 

Mr. Sullivan’s pro se pleadings, his “allegations [were] rambling and incoherent” and 

did not state any claim under federal law in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Id.

at 821. The court therefore dismissed the federal claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, 

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state-law claims, 

and entered judgment dismissing the case without prejudice. The court also, 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 4
5

alternatively, concluded that Mr. Sullivan’s “complaint is largely a repeat of claims 

that have been dismissed by this Court and the Tenth Circuit” and dismissed it for 

that reason as well. Id. 

Mr. Sullivan filed a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in which he 

also requested the district court appoint counsel for him. The district court denied 

the motion. 

II. 23-3154

The proceedings in 23-3154 were nearly identical to those in 23-3153, though 

they involved slightly different claims and different defendants. Mr. Sullivan filed 

an 81-page pro se complaint in November 2022. Once again, the defendants filed 

motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 and, once again, the court denied the motions 

without prejudice, ordering Mr. Sullivan to file an amended complaint and stating 

such an amended complaint “likely does not need to exceed forty pages.” R. (23-3154), 

vol. 6 at 58. 

Here, too, Mr. Sullivan twice received an extension of time to file his amended 

complaint, which he filed in June 2023. Once again, the court dismissed the newly added 

parties and directed Mr. Sullivan “to file a Second Amended Complaint that shall not 

exceed fifty pages.” R. (23-3154) vol. 1, at 33. On the deadline to file this pleading, 

Mr. Sullivan filed a motion to exceed the page limitations along with his 105-page 

proposed second amended complaint. See Aplee. App. (23-3154) at 77–181. 

As in 23-3153, the district court denied Mr. Sullivan’s motion to exceed page 

limitations. The court further concluded that, notwithstanding the liberal 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 5
6

construction owed to Mr. Sullivan’s pro se pleadings, his allegations lacked 

coherence and did not state any claim for a federal law violation in compliance with 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The court therefore dismissed the federal claims under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining 

state-law claims, and entered judgment dismissing the case without prejudice. 

Mr. Sullivan filed a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in which he 

requested the district court appoint counsel for him. The district court denied the 

motion. 

DISCUSSION

Construing Mr. Sullivan’s briefs liberally, in both cases he challenges (a) the 

district court’s imposition of a page limit on his amended complaints; (b) the 

subsequent dismissal without prejudice of his claims and (c) the denial of his requests 

for appointment of counsel.2

 We review each of these decisions for abuse of 

discretion. See Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106, 1112 (10th Cir. 2007)

(imposition of page limits); Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 

1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) (dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41); 

Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (denial of appointed 

counsel in a civil case). 

2 In his Reply Brief in 23-3154, Mr. Sullivan argues for the first time that the 

district court judge was unfairly prejudiced or biased against him. “But arguments 

raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived,” so we do not consider this 

argument. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Pracs. Litig., 872 F.3d 1094, 1112, 

n.5 (10th Cir. 2017). 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 6
7

We discern no abuse of discretion. Mr. Sullivan challenges the procedural 

propriety of the court’s dismissals under Rule 41, but the dismissals were without 

prejudice, and a “district court may, without abusing its discretion, enter such an 

order without attention to any particular procedures.” Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1162. He 

also argues, at considerable length in both cases, against the constitutionality of 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) as applied to him specifically and to disabled litigants 

generally. But the district court did not dismiss his claims under § 1915 in either 

case, so these arguments do not apply. 

Mr. Sullivan also challenges the imposition of a page limit on his amended 

complaints. Not only have we previously upheld similar limitations as reasonable, 

see Timmerman, 483 F.3d at 1112, but here the district court independently 

concluded the proposed amended complaints did not state a claim for relief in 

compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Mr. Sullivan does not refute this conclusion. 

Finally, having reviewed the record in both cases, Mr. Sullivan’s request for 

appointment of counsel did not present an “extreme case[] where the lack of counsel 

result[ed] in fundamental unfairness,” so we will not overturn the court’s decisions to 

deny it. McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 839 (10th Cir. 1985). 

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 7
8

CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgments of the district court. 

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 23-3153 Document: 010111051505 Date Filed: 05/17/2024 Page: 8