A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i tt ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT L OR E N R . L US E RO ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1395 v . (D . C o lo .) J O H N W E L T , C orr ect i onal Li e u t e n a n t ; PAM PURD UE, Co rr e c t i o n a l L i e u t e n a n t ; CL YDE S TAHL, Co rr e c t i o n a l Ch a i rp e r s o n CM I I I ; C O R R E C T I O N A L O FFICE R , of D el t a C orr ect i onal Faci l i tyof H ous i ng U ni t - 5 ( 3r d Shi ft ) , N ov. 23, 2005; C A P T A IN , D e lta C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty ( 3 r d S h i f

t ) , No v . 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 ; DE AN C O N R O Y , C ol or ado A s s i s t ant Att o rn e yGe n e r a l ; J UDGE CR G, D i s tr i c tJ u d g e o f

D e l t a C o u n ty, C ol or ado; J . M E T Z G E R , C ol or ado A ppel l at e J udge,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 2 1 4 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M URP HY, S EY M OUR, and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.I n hi s compl ai nt , M r . L us er o al s o chal l enged the D el t a C ountyD i s tr i ct 1 C our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s hi s s t at e habe as corpus pet i t i on. T he fe der al di s tr i ct c o u rt n o ted th a t “M r. L u se ro m a yn o t ch a llen g e in th is c iv il righ ts a c tio n a sta te co u rtjud g m en t i n a h ab ea s co rpu s ac ti o n . ” R . V o l. I, D o c. 18 , at 3. M r. L u sero d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th is ru lin g o n a p p e a l. -2- In a n a c tio n b ro u g h t u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , P la in tiff L o re n R . L u s e ro , a C ol or ado pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , alle g e s th a t p riso n o fficia ls v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts b yp lac in g h im in admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on aft erhe i nform ed them t hatanotherpr i s onerhad threa tene d an d att ac k ed h im . T h e d istri ct co u rtd ism issed the a cti o n , fin d ing M r. L u se ro ’s c laim s le g a llyf riv o lo u s. W e a ffirm in p a rt a n d re v e rse in p a rt. BA CKGROUND In A u g u s t 2 0 0 6 , M r. L u s e ro file d a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1983 al l egi ng thatvar i ous pr i s on offi ci al s vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s and equa l p ro tec tio n rig h ts a n d in flicte d c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t b yp lac in g h im in admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on fol l ow i ng hi s r eques tforpr ot ect i on fr om another inm ate w h o all eg ed lythrea tene d an d assa u lt ed h im . A fter g ran ti n g M r. L u sero 1 l eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d h is c laim s le g a lly frivo lou s an d d ism issed h is co m p lai n t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). A ddr es s i ng M r . L us er o’ s due pr oces s cl ai m , the di s tr i ctcourthel d thatthe “C ons t i tut i on does notent i t l e [M r . L us er o] t o anypr ocedur al pr ot ect i on ei ther befor e oraft erhe w as pl ace d i n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on becaus e he doe s not-3-

h av e a p rotec ted libertyinterest i n h is cl assifica ti o n o r plac em en t. ” R . V o l. I, D oc. 18, at4. T he courtr ecogni zed thatpr i s on condi t i ons can i m pl i cat e a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti f theycr eat e an “ ‘ atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p on the in m ate in re lat ion to the o rdin aryincid en ts of p ri so n li fe , ’” b u t fo u n d that M r. L u s e ro fa ile d to a lle g e a n ys u c h c o n d itio n s in h is c a s e . Id. ( quot i ng Sandi n v. C onner , 5 1 5 U . S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 4 (19 9 5 )). T h e c o u rtalso fo u n d “n o ind icati o n that M r. L u se ro ’s p lac e m e n t in a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n in e v itab lyw ill a ffe c t th e len g th of hi s confi nement . ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 18, at4. T h e d istric t co u rt a lso fo u n d f riv o lo u s M r. L u se ro ’s c laim th a t h is pl ace m enti n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on s ubj ect s hi m t o cruel and unus ual p u n i s h me n t . Th e c o u r tn o t e d th a t : ( 1 ) a p r i s o n e rmu s td e mo n s tr a t e “ ‘ e x tr e me depr i vat i ons . . . t o m ake outa condi t i ons - of- confi nementcl ai m , ’ ” i d. a t 5 ( quot i ng Huds on v. McMi l l i an , 503 U . S. 1, 9 ( 1992) ) ; ( 2) that“[i ] n the abs ence

‘ of a s peci fi c depr i vat i on of a human need, an Ei ghth A m endmentcl ai m bas ed on pr i s on condi t i ons m us tfai l , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng Shi f r i n v. F i elds , 39 F. 3d 1112, 1114 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )); a n d (3 ) th a t a p riso n e r m u st s h o w “ D e fe n d a n ts a c ted w ith del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , ” thati s , thatthe pr i s on offi ci al “‘ know s thati nm at es fac e a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm and di s r egar ds thatr i s k byfai l i ng t o t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o abat e i t , ’ ” i d. ( quot i ng Far m erv. B r ennan , 511 U . S. 825, 847 ( 1994) ) . Fi ndi ng thatM r . L us er o fai l ed t o al l ege thatthe D efe ndant s hadW e re a d M r. L u se ro ’s “ A m e n d e d C o m p lain t” a s m e re lya d d in g d e fe n d a n ts 2 and al l egat i ons t o hi s or i gi nal compl ai ntand notas s uper s edi ng i t . W e thus l ook t o b oth fi l i ng s t o d et erm i ne the cl ai m s and all egati on s he rai ses. -4- know l edge of

a r i s k of s er i ous harm , the courtdi s m i s s ed hi s E i ghth A m endment c la im . A s t o M r . L us er o’ s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m , the courtnot ed thati t“‘ need a c c e p t as tru e o n lyth e p lain tiff ’s w e ll-p lea d e d fa c tu a l co n ten tio n s, n o t h is concl us oryal l egat i ons . ’ ” Id. at6 ( quot i ng Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). T h e c o u rt fo u n d th a t M r. L u se ro ’s e q u a l p ro tec tio n c laim cons i s t ed onl yof “va gue and c oncl us oryal l egat i ons , ” i d. , voi d of anyfac tual su p p o rt, an d th e re fo re d ism iss e d it. DI S CU S S I ON A s w i th hi s compl ai nt , M r . L us er o’ s fi l i ng befor e thi s C ourti s nota model of clar i ty . B ecause h e proceed s pro se , how ever , w e cons true hi s cl ai m s and a l l e g a t i o n s l i b e r a l l y. Hu n t v. U p h o ff , 1 9 9 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); 2 C um m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F. 3d 610, 613 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . W e r evi ew the di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de novo . Fogl e v. P i ers on , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e tu rn first to M r. L u se ro ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim s. T h e n e c e ss a ryp re d ica te to a d u e p ro c e ss c laim is a d e p riv a tio n o f a p ro tec ted in ter e st. In g e n e ra l,

“ a d m in istra tiv e se g re g a tio n is th e so rt o f c o n fin e m e n t th a t in m a tes sh o u ld r eas onabl yant i ci pat e r ece i vi ng ats om e poi nti n thei ri ncar cer at i on, ” Hew i t tv.-5-

He lms , 4 5 9 U .S . 4 6 0 , 4 6 8 (1 9 8 3 ). S u c h c o n fin e m e n t th e re fo re d o e s n o t typ ica lly i m pl i cat e a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es t . I n Sandi n v. C onner , h o we v e r , th e S u p r e me C ou rtheld that adm i nis trat i ve segregati on m ayi m pli cat e a l i bertyi nter est pr ot ect ed bythe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i f i t“i m pos es [an] atypi cal and s i gni fi cant har ds hi p on the i nm at e i n r el at i on t o the or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe, ” 515 U .S . a t 4 8 4 , o r i f

it in e v ita b ly in c re a s e s th e d u ra tio n o f th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . Id. a t 4 8 7 ; Wi ls on v. Jones , 430 F. 3d 1113, 1120–21 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he di s tr i ct courtdi s m i s s ed M r . L us er o’ s due pr oces s cl ai m on the gr ound thathi s s egr egat i on s a tis fie d n e ith e r o f

th e s e s ta n d a rd s . T urni ng fi r s tt o the i s s ue of w hetherM r . L us er o al l eged thathi s s egr egat i on i m pos ed an a typi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p, w e bel i eve thathe di d al l ege that th e len g th o f

h is s e g re g a tio n im p o se d su c h a h a rd sh ip . In h is in iti a l co m p lain t, M r . L us er o averr ed thathe has been i n admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on s i nce N ovember23, 2005, R . V ol . I , D oc. 3, at3, and ar gued that“the magni tude of p lain tiff ’s d e p riv a tio n o f h is lib e rtyf

ro m th e g e n e ra l p riso n p o p u latio n is c lea rly [a] w r ong pr ot ect ed bythe [D ] ue [P] r oces s [C ] l aus e, ” i d. a t 6 (A ). A n d in h is “A m ended Com pl ai nt , ” M r . L us er o s t at ed that“ther e w as no purpos e for in de ter m in a te s egr egat i on fr om the gene r al pr i s on popul at i on. ” Id. , D oc. 14, at 7–8 ( emphasi s added) . H e al s o ar gued that“defendant s [’ ] ‘ del i ber at e negl i gence ’ h e lp e d c o n trib u te to ill e g a l cont i nued s egr egat i on thats hould have be en

‘ t empor ar

y’thatm al i ci ous l ygotturned i nt o ‘ puni t i ve s egr egat i on. ’ ” Id. at10-6-

(e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e c o n stru e th e se sta tem e n ts a s a lleg a tio n s th a t h e h a s b e e n in i ndefi ni t e ori ndet erm i nat e s egr egat i on s i nce N ovember , 2005, w hen a typi cal s e g r e g a t i o n i n h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d h a v e b e e n o n l y t e m p o r a ry. W e have caut i oned that“a di s tr i ctcourterr s i n su a sp o n te di s m i s s i ng a pr i s oner ’ s due pr oces s cl ai m under§ 1915 i f i tdoes nothave s uffi ci entevi dence b efo re itto f

u ll yad d ress b o th the d u rati o n an d d eg ree o f th e p lai n ti ff ’s r es tr i ct i ons as compar ed w i th otheri nm at es . ” Tr u j i l l o v . Wi l l i a ms , 465 F. 3d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 2 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma rk s o mi tt e d ) . Wh i l e we r ecogni ze thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s al l egat i ons i n Tru jil lo w ere m ore speci fi c than tho se pr es ent ed byM r . L us er o— i n Tru jil lo the pl ai nt i ff “ s peci fi cal l yal l ege[ d] thathe s pentover750 day s i n s egr egat i on and thatotheri nm at es r emai n i n s egr egat i on forthe mosts er i ous offe ns es foronl y180 day s , ” i d.

— w e thin k M r. L u sero ’s as s ert i ons w er e atl eas ts uffi ci entt o avoi d di s m i s s al forfr i vol ous nes s . T o be d ism iss e d a s f

riv o lo u s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 , a c o m p lain t m u st “ lac k [ ] a n a rg u a b le b a sis ei theri n l aw ori n fac t . ” Ne i tz ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . T hat thr es hol d has notbeen mether e. M r . L us er o has al l eged thathe s oughtpr ot ect i on fr om anotheri nm at e and w as thus pl ace d i nt o admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on, p re su m a b lyfo r h is o w n sa fe ty . F o r re a so n s n o t en tirelyc lea r a t th is p o in t, th is se g re g a tio n h a s c o n tin u e d , ap p a re n tlyin d e fin itely

— a situ a tio n th a t h is c o m p lain t, re a d g e n e ro u sly , alle g e s is a typ ica l an d sig n ifica n t.W hi l e Br o wn do es not const i tute bi nd i ng preceden t , i tsucci nctl yst at es a 3 pr i nci pl e of c ons t i tut i onal l aw appl i cabl e i n thi s cas e, w i th ci t at i ons t o pr i or pu bli shed o pini on s. -7- I f i ttu rn s o u tth a ta p r o t e c t e d l i b e rtyi n t e r e s ti s i mp l i c a t e d i n th i s c a s e , we not e that“the pr oces s w hi ch i s due underthe U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on i s that m eas ur ed bythe [D ] ue [P] r oces s [C ] l aus e, notpr i s on r egul at i ons . ” B r ow n v. R i os , N o. 06- 1210, 2006 W L 2666058, at*2 ( 10th C i r . Sept . 18, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( ci t i ng C lev e la n dB d . o f E du c . v. L o u de rm ill , 470 U . S. 532, 541 (1 9 8 5 ); Hul en v. Yat es , 3 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 4 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Shakurv. Sels ky , 3 9 1 F .3 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 )) ; see also C onner , 515 U . S. at481–82 ( not i ng 3 thatpr i s on r egul at i ons “pr i m ar i l ydes i gned t o gui de corr ect i onal offi ci al s i n the adm i nis trat i on of a p ri son” are “no tdesi gn ed to con fer r i gh t s on inm at es”) . T hu s, a lth o u g h M r. L u se ro c o n ten d s th a t p riso n o fficia ls v io late d p riso n re g u latio n s in th e c o u rse o f

p lac in g h im in se g re g a tio n , tha t fa c t alo n e w o u ld n o t n e c e ss a rily cons t i tut e a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. I ns t ead, he w oul d need t o demonstr at e that offi ci al s r an afoul of the pr ocedur al r equi r ement s enunci at ed i n Wol f f v. McD o n n e ll , 418 U . S. 539, 563–66 ( 1974) . W e not e thatM r . L us er o’ s di s tr i ct courtfi l i ngs , as w el l as hi s fi l i ng on appea l , s eem t o chal l enge the s uffi ci encyof th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d a t h is d is c ip lin a ry h e a ri n g , s ee e . g. , R . V ol . I , D oc. 3, at6, 6 (A ); i d. , D oc. 14, at9, 11— a cl ai m thatdes erves att ent i on s houl d he pr ocee d p a s t th e fir s t s te p o f

th e d u e p ro c e s s a n a lysis , s ee G w i nn v. A w m i l l er , 354 F. 3d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t d u e p ro c e ss re q u ire s “ so m e e v id e n c e to-8-

s uppor tthe hea r i ng panel ’ s deci s i on”) ( ci t i ng Wo lff , 4 1 8 U .S . a t 5 9 2 (M a rs h a ll, J ., co n cu rri n g )). T urni ng t o the nexti s s ue, M r . L us er o cont es t s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ng thatther e w as no i ndi cat i on thathi s admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on w oul d i ncr eas e the o v e ra ll l e n g th o f

h is s e n ten c e . In h is a p p e llate f ili n g , h e n o tes : “O f

c o u rse th is a lle g e d ille g a l r e s tr a in t a ffe c ts th e le n g th o f p la in tiff[ ’] s o ri g in a l p ri s o n te rm . Puni t i ve s egr egat i on i s forbad beha vi orand bad be havi or , w hen pr es ent ed atthe p a ro le b o a rd , n o t o n lyd e n ies p lain tiff[ ’]s c h a n c e o f p a ro le[ ,] itp ro lo n g s h is c h a n c e o f

e a rlyp a ro le.” A p p e llan t/P e tit io n e r’s O p e n in g B r. at 8 . A n d in h is compl ai nthe made r efe r ence t o hi s “l os s of t i m e cr edi t s acc or di ng t o C ol or ado s ta tu te s o f

g o o d -e a rn e d tim e o f

te n d a y s p e r m o n th .” R . V o l. I , D o c . 3 , a t 8 . T o the ext entM r . L us er o chal l enges the l os s of opportuni tyt o earn goodt i m e cr edi tdur i ng hi s per i od of admi ni s tr at i ve s egr egat i on, hi s cl ai m fai l s . Such a l os s “does notdepr i ve a pr i s onerof a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” Twym an v. C risp , 5 8 4 F .2 d 3 5 2 , 3 5 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ). A n d C o lo ra d o la w f u rn is h e s n o s u c h ri g h t. I n s t e a d , i te x p r e s s l yp e rmi t s th e d e n i a l o f th e o p p o rtu n i tyt o e a rn g o o d - t i me c re d its . See C ol o. R ev. St at . § 17- 22. 5- 301( 4) ( “N othi ng i n thi s s ect i on s hal l be c o n stru e d a s to p re v e n t th e d e p a rtm e n t f ro m w ith h o ld in g g o o d tim e e a rn a b le in s ubs equentper i ods of s ent ence , butnoty etearned, forconductoccurr i ng i n a g iven p eriod o f se n tenc e.”)-9-

T o the ext ent M r. L usero seeks r ei nst at em ent of revoke d g oo d-t i m e credi t s, hi s cl ai m fai l s as a pr ocedur al m att er . A pet i t i on forhabea s corpus — nota § 1983 s u it— is th e p ro p e r a v e n u e fo r s e e k in g s u c h re lie f. See Heckv. Humphr ey , 512 U . S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 (19 9 4 ); P r eis erv. R odr iguez , 4 1 1 U .S . 4 7 5 , 4 9 0 (1 9 7 3 ); B r ow n v. Sm ith , 8 2 8 F .2 d 1 4 9 3 , 1 4 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (p e r c u ria m ). W e n o te th a t ev e n if pr ocedur al l ypr oper , M r . L us er o’ s cl ai m w oul d l i kel yfai l as a s ubs t ant i ve mat t er as w ell . L o ss o f g o o d -t im e c red it s im p li ca tes a li b ertyinterest on lyif “the S tat e’s act i on w i l l i nevi t abl yaffectthe dur at i on of hi s s ent ence . ” C onner , 515 U . S. at 487. U nderC ol or ado l aw , onl yi nm at es s ervi ng s ent ence s forcr i m es comm i tt ed o n o r a f te r J u ly 1 , 1 9 7 9 , b u t b e fo re J u ly 1 , 1 9 8 5 , a re e n title d to m a n d a to ry p a ro le . Thi r etv. Kautz ky , 7 9 2 P . 2 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 5 (C o lo. 19 9 0 ). M r. L u sero d o es n o t assert thathe fi t s w i thi n thi s cat egory . U nderthe par ol e r egi m e i n pl ace forcr i m es comm i t t ed befor e J ul y1, 1979, oraft erJ ul y1, 1985, “w hen ‘ the i nm at e’ s actual t i me s e rv e d , p r e s e n t e n c e c o n fi n e me n tc r e d i t , a n d g o o d t i me a n d e a rn e d t i me cr edi t s equal orexce ed the s ent ence i m pos ed, he i s notent i t l ed t o an uncondi t i onal r el eas e, butr atherhas earned the r i ghtt o be cons i der ed for par ol e. ’ ” Fultz v. E m bry , 158 F. 3d 1101, 1103 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng Jones v. Mar t i nez , 7 9 9 P .2 d 3 8 5 , 3 8 7

– 8 8 & n .5 (C o lo . 1 9 9 0 )); s ee Thi r et , 792 P. 2d at805 ( expl ai ni ng thatpr i s oner s notfi tt i ng w i thi n the 1979–1985 ca t egory“maybe g r a n t e d o rd e n i e d p a r o l e a tth e d i s c r e t i o n o f th e P a r o l e Bo a r d ” ) . As we p re v io u slye x p lain e d in a n u n p u b lish e d b u t p e rsu a siv e o p in io n :-10-

A C o lo ra d o in m a te h a s n o c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to g o o d tim e c re d it, s ee Kodam a v. Johns on , 786 P. 2d 417, 419 ( C ol o. 1990) , even tho ug h “the accum ulat i on of g oo d ti m e credi t s serves . . . the p urpose of det erm i ni ng an i nm at e’ s par ol e el i gi bi l i tydat e, ” P eople v. Sw eps t on , 8 2 2 P . 2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 2 ( Co l o . Ct . Ap p . 1 9 9 1 ) . Go o d t i me c re d its d o n o t c o u n t to w a rd s e n te n c e re d u c tio n . See i d. T hus , [a p r i s o n e r ’ s ] l o s s o f

g o o d t i m e c r e d i t s [ d o e s ] n o t“ i n e v i t a b l y” i ncr eas e[] the dur at i on of hi s s ent ence , and ac cor di ngl ydoes notgi ve ri se t o a ri gh tt o d ue p rocess . Klein v . C o b len tz , N o. 96- 1289, 1997 W L 767538, at*4 ( 10th C i r . N ov. 19, 1 9 9 7 ). As fo rM r . L u s e r o ’ s e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d E i g h th Am e n d me n tc l a i ms , we have r evi ew ed cl os el ythe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s opi ni on and fi nd i t s r eas oni ng s ound a n d its c o n c lu s io n s c o rr e c t. T h e re fo re , w e a ffir m th e d is m is s a l o f th e s e c la im s . See Nei tz ke , 49 0 U . S . at32 8 (explai ning that di stri ctcou rt s m aydis m i ss c o m p la in ts o n f

ri v o lo u s n e s s g ro u n d s u n d e r § 1 9 1 5 w h e re th e p la in tiff “ c la im s . . . inf ri n g em en t of

a leg al i n terest w h ich c learlyd o es n o t exist”).

CO NC L US I ON T he j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe D i s tr i ctof C olor ado i s AFF I RM ED in p a rt , REVERSED i n part , and REM AND ED . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s gr ant ed, and he i s r emi nded th a t h e is o b lig a ted to c o n tin u e m a k in g p a rtial p a ym e n ts to w a rd th e b a lan c e o f h is a ss e ss e d fe e s a n d c o sts u n til th e ya re p a id in f u ll. E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge