UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WARDEN, USP-MAX-ADX, Respondent - Appellee.

–––––––––––––––––––– ––––––––––––––– TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant,

v.BABCOCK, Judge; WARDEN, USPMAX-ADX, Respondents - Appellees. No. 18-1466 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-02959-LTB) (D. Colo.)

No. 18-1485 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-03105-CMA) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________

* Oral argument would no t materially help us t o decide this appea l. We have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgme nt does not constitut e binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive valu e if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. A pp. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32 .1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 12, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Before BRISCOE , BALDOCK , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ In these cases, the district court ordered dismissal based on a failure to comply with filing r estrictions. We affirm.
I. Background Mr. Timothy Young is a pro se litigant who inc urred filing restrictions in the District Court for the District of Colorado

. See Young v. United States , No. 14-cv-00073-LTB (D. Colo. June 13 , 2014) (ECF No. 24). 1 Without complying with these r estrictions, Mr. Young brought t wo cases in district court. In these cases, he alleged that the di strict court, our court, and the Tenth C ircuit Judicial Counc il are blocking his access to the courts, violating the Constitution, and committing wire and mai l fraud. See Appeal No. 18-1466, R. at 3–5; Appeal No. 18-1485, R. at 3–5. I n both cases, the district court ordered that the actions be stricken for failure to comply with the filing restrictio ns. And in one of the actions (the one underlying Appeal No. 18-1466), t he court sanctioned Mr. Young $400.

1 As of 2014, Mr. Young had apparently brought 184 cases in dis trict court and 98 appeals. See Young v. United States , No. 14-cv-00073-LTB, slip op. at 4–5 (D. C olo. Apr. 22, 2014) (E CF No. 20) (directin g Mr. Young to show cause why filin g restrictions should not be i mposed given his initiati on of 184 cases and 98 appeals).3 Mr. Young has appealed the o rders striking both cases, 2 arguing that the district court had committed crimes, falsified orders and f acts, and refused to send necessary forms. He also moved fo r leave to pro ceed without prepaying the filing fees in the two appeals. We affirm the orders striking both actions and deny the motions to avoid prepayment of the filing fees.
II. Striking the Two Cases In reviewing the underlying orders, we apply the abuse-of-disc retion standard. See Gripe v. City of Enid , 312 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002) (reviewing a sanction of dismissal for an abuse of discretion). We affirm under this standard. The restrict ions warned Mr. Young that con tinued noncompliance wou ld result in a $400 sanct ion and an order stri king all non-compliant filings. See Young v. United States , No. 14-cv-00073-LTB, slip op. at 5-6 (D. Colo. June 13, 2014) (E CF No. 24). Given th e warning, the district court cou ld reasonably enforce the filing restrict ions. We thus affirm the dismissals. The filing restriction s required Mr. Young to

 file a motion seeking leave to file a pro se action,

 attach a copy of the order w ith the filing restrictions,

2 In Appeal No. 18-1466 , the court clerk d irected Mr. Young to show cause why the appeal s hould not be dismisse d for lack of jurisd iction. We conclude that we have jurisd iction in App eal No. 18-1466.4  attach a complaint or habeas f orm and pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in fo rma pauperis [IF P] (with the required inmate acc ount statement),

 attach a list of his prisoner co mplaints and habeas actions tha t are pending or that he had previously filed in federal court, a nd

 attach an affidavit stating that the claims are not frivolous, aren’t asserted in bad faith or for an improper purpose, and have not been presented in another federal court. Mr. Young didn’t comply with these restrictions, so the distric t court dismissed both cases. 3 Mr. Young does not give any excu se for failing to comply with the filing restrictions. He instead argues that they had been unjus tified. The court had impose d these restrictions in 2014 ( Young v. United States ,

3 In these appeals, Mr. Young asse rts that Magistrate Judge Bol and refused to furnish the required forms. Mr. Young p reviously lod ged similar allegations against the Bureau of Prisons, claiming that it ref used to send him the forms for prisoner compla ints and a certified copy of h is account statement. Given these allegations, Magistrate Judge Boland dir ected the warden to respond. Mr . Young then voluntari ly dismissed the com plaint. Though the case had been dismi ssed, two Bureau of Prisons’ employees stated under oath that (1) a legal assistant had deli vered the complaint form, the filing instr uctions, an IFP form, and a cer tified copy of Mr. Young’s account statement an d (2) Mr. Young had not request ed a copy of his account statements. M r. Young had four teen days to reply, but he didn’t. Despi te this history, Mr. Young accuses Magistrate J udge Boland of refusi ng to furnish the requ ired forms. Mr. Young has not provided any support f or this accusation.5 No. 14-cv-00073-LTB (D. Colo. June 13, 2014) (ECF No. 24)). Thi s order is not among the r ulings that Mr. Y oung has appealed. To challenge the filing restrictions, he needed to appeal the 2014 order. See Werner v. Utah , 32 F.3d 1446, 1448 (10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[I]f pe titioner disagrees wit h the district cour t’s filing restrictions, his avenue for review is an appeal from the order establishing the restrictions.”). But he didn’t appea l the 2014 order. Nor do the present appeals en compass the 2014 order. Nonethele ss, Mr. Young is arguing th at the district cour t shouldn’t have enf orced the filing restrictions because they shouldn’t have been entered in the first place. This argument c onstitutes a collatera l challenge to the filing restrictions, which is improper. See Stine v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 506 F. App’x 846, 848 ( 10th Cir. 2013) (unpub lished) (“[T]o the extent Plaintiff is challenging the terms or scope of the filing restr ictions, he cannot collaterally attack those restrictions in this proceedin g.”); accord Schildhaus v. Moe , 335 F.2d 529, 530 (2d Cir. 1964) (“ The injunction, whether right or wrong , is not subject to im peachment in its ap plication to the conditions that existed at its making.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We thus affirm the ord ers striking the two actions f or noncompliance with the filing restrictions.6 III. Relief from Prepaymen t of the Filing Fees We also deny the motions to pro ceed on appeal w ithout prepayme nt of the filing fees. To proceed without prep ayment, Mr. Young “m ust show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees, as well as the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argum ent on the law a nd facts in su pport of the issues raised in the action.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury , 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Although Mr. Young is indigent, his chal lenge to the reasoning is frivolous. We thus deny his motions to be reli eved of prepayment of the filing fees.
IV. Disposition We affirm the orders striking t he two cases and deny Mr. Young ’s motions to proceed wi thout prepayment of the filing fees. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge