UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JEREMIAH CASPER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JOE DISALVO; KIM VALLARIO; BRAD GIBSON; LEVI BORST; SARA ROUSH; JAIRO GARCIA; ZANE CISNEROS; MARTIN GONZALEZ, Defendants - Appellees. No. 23-1229 (D.C. No. 1:23- CV-00508-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BRISCOE , and EID , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Jeremiah Casper, a Colorado state pris oner appearing pro se, filed a lengthy, handwritten civil rights compla int asserting approximately twenty-four claims against various individuals employed by the Pitkin County (Colorado) Sher iff’s Office. The magistrate judge ordered Ca sper to refile his compla int using a court-approved prisoner complaint form. Casper res ponded by filing an amended complaint on a

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 15, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 12 court-approved prisoner complaint form. Notably, however, Casper failed to substantially complete the form. Both the magistrate judge and the district court directed Casper to utilize and complete a court-approved prisoner complaint form and to attach additional pages as needed to co mplete the sections of the approved form. Casper filed a second amende d complaint. Although the first portion of the second amended complaint included a court-approved prisoner complaint form, Casper again failed to substantially co mplete the form and instead attached to the form a handwritten complaint that was similar to his original comp laint. The district court responded by dismissing the case without prejudice due to Casper’s failure to comply with the court’s orders. Casper now appeals. Exercising jurisdic tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district cour t and deny Casper’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
I On February 24, 2023, Casper initiate d these federal proceedings by filing three pro se pleadings: a seve nty-page civil rights complain t, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a motion for appointment of counsel. All three pleadings were handwr itten by Casper on blank sheets of paper. The cover sheet of the complaint stat ed: “Civil Rights Complaint Filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “Pattern of Cons titutional Deprivation(s) Suffered from Pitkin, Colorado Sheriff’s De partment.” ROA at 5. The complaint alleged, in relevant part, that Casper wa s incarcerated at a Colorado st ate correctional facility in Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 23 Sterling, Colorado, but had previously been confined at the Pitk in County (Colorado) Jail. The complaint named as defendant s “Sheriff Joe DiSalvo,” “Commander Kim Vallario,” two “[a]rresting sher iff deputies: Brad Gibson” and “Levi Borst,” and four “[j]ail based deputies: Sara Roush, Jair o Garcia, Zane Cisn eros, [and] Martin Gonzalez.” Id . at 7. The body of the complaint alleged twenty-four separate civil rights claims against the na med defendants and purported to outline “supporting case law” for each of the claims. Id . at 31. On February 28, 2023, the magistrate judge assigned to th e case issued an order directing Casper to cure certain de ficiencies in his § 1915 motion and in his complaint. The order noted that Caspe r’s § 1915 motion was not on a court-approved form and was missing a “certified copy of [Casper’s] trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately pr eceding th[e] filing” and “aut horization to calculation and disburse filing fee payments.” ECF No. 5 at 2. The order in turn noted that Casper’s complaint was “not on [a] proper form” and that Casper was required to “use [the] current court-approv ed Prisoner Complaint form.” Id . The order directed Casper to “cure” the identified de ficiencies “within 30 days.” Id . at 3. On March 9, 2023, Casper filed an amended complaint on a six-page, court-approved prisoner complaint form. On the first page of the form, which included spaces for identifying the “Plain tiff” and the “Defendant(s),” Casper handwrote his name and the names of the de fendants. ROA at 81. On the second and third pages of the form, which asked him to provide detailed information about each defendant, Casper handwrote a single senten ce: “See attached co mplaint for all (8) Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 34 defendants.” Id . at 82. Similarly, on the fourth pa ge of the form, which asked him to “[s]tate clearly and concis ely every claim that you are asserting in this action,” Casper handwrote the following: “See att ached complaint for numerous claim(s), defendant participation, dama ges, & supporting case law.” Id . at 84. And on the sixth page of the form, which asked him to “[s]tate the relief you are requesting or what you want the court to do,” Casper handwrote the following: “See complaint damages & participation for all claim(s) suffered.” Id . at 86. Notwithstanding Casper’s repeated references to an “at tached complaint,” how ever, there were no documents attached to or otherwise s ubmitted with the prisoner complaint form. Along with the amended complaint, Casper also filed on March 9, 2023, a new motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuan t to § 1915 and statements in support of that motion. On April 7, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a second order directing Casper to cure deficiencies in his new § 1915 mo tion and his amended complaint. The order noted that Casper’s new § 1915 motion wa s “missing [a] certified copy of [Casper’s] trust fund statement for the 6-month peri od immediately preceding th[e] filing.” Id

. at 98. As for Casper’s amende d complaint, the order noted: Plaintiff must submit a comple te prisoner complaint on the court-approved form. The Court will not piece together separate filings and/or supplements. Instead, a comp lete prisoner complaint, along with all of the pages, claims, factual allegations, request for relief, and information must be submitted in one complete document on the court-approved form. Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 45 Id . at 99. The order directed Casper to cure these deficien cies within thirty days of the date of the order. The order also advised Casper that if he failed to cure the deficiencies within thirty days of the da te of the order, “t he action w[ould] be dismissed without further notice.” Id . at 100. On April 24, 2023, Casper filed a ha ndwritten motion titled “Combined motion to set aside/modify magistrate 4/7/23 ‘S econd order directing plaintiff to cure deficiencies,’ per CRCP 60(b)(5) due to unconstitutional directives; and petition to exceed page limitations for complaint introduction.” Id . at 101. The motion asked “the court to modify its most current order with respect to the ove rly restrictive space limitations of the ‘court appr oved complaint form.’” Id . Casper asserted in support that “the ‘court approved’ form d[id] not have adequate sp ace to introduce [his] singular complaint composed of 26 seperate [sic] claim(s)” and that “[a]dditional space . . . [wa]s needed.” Id . at 102. Casper also argue d that “the legal strategy of the extensive initial filing of the case [wa]s deliber ate to the extent the effort ‘m[ight] serve’ to support ‘potentia l’ settlement avenues.” Id . at 103. Ultimately, Casper argued that requiring him to use a cour t-approved complaint form was “both unreasonable and unconstitutional.” Id . at 107. Casper therefore asked the district court to “accept [his] compla int and all supporting documen ts” that had previously been filed. Id . at 110. On May 17, 2023, the district cour t issued an order denying Casper’s combined motion “as to the re quest that he not be require d to use the court-approved Prisoner complaint form,” but “grant[ing] in part as to his re quest to exceed page Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 56 limitations.” Id . at 116. The district court explai ned that “[a]s to the requirement that [Casper] submit his Prisoner Comp laint on the court-approved form, a pro se party must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants.” Id . The district court in turn noted th at its local rules “require[d] pro se litigants, both prisoners and nonprisoners, to use the Court-approved forms found on the Court’s website.” Id . The district court also noted that the “Tenth Circu it ha[d] repeatedly upheld the requirement that pro se litigants comply with local rules requiring use of proper court-approved forms, and ha[d] re jected constitutional challenges to such rules.” Id . at 116–17 (citing severa l unpublished Tenth Circ uit cases). As for Casper’s “request to exceed page limitations ,” the district court granted that request “in part” and ordered that Casper’s “Ame nded Prisoner Complaint may be up to 45 (forty-five) pages.” Id . at 117. The district court a dvised Casper, however, “that he must use the court-approved prisoner co mplaint form and not include additional sections that [we]re not part of the court-approved form.” Id . at 117–18. The district court noted, for example, that “[h]is pleadi ng d[id] not need to have an ‘introduction’ section or a ‘caselaw’ section.” Id . at 118. The district cour t afforded Casper thirty days to file an amended complaint that co mplied with the court’s directives and noted that if he “fail[ed] to cure the deficiencies as directed within th e time allowed, the action w[ould] be dismissed without further notice.” Id . at 119. On May 24, 2023, Casper filed a sec ond amended complaint. The first six pages of the second amended complaint included a court-approved prisoner complaint form. But the form was, for the most pa rt, incomplete. Casper listed Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 67 himself as the plaintiff and provided his address. But he did not list any of the defendants and instead referred to attach ments that he submitted with the form. Similarly, in the “STATEMENT OF CLAIM(S)” and “REQUEST FOR RELIEF” sections of the form, Casper referred to an attachment he submit ted with the form. Id . at 129, 131. Notably, th at attachment was a handwr itten complaint detailing his claims against the named defendants. On June 28, 2023, the district court issued an order of dismissal. The district court concluded in the order that Casper “ha[d] failed to follow Court Orders and failed to cure the deficiencies as directed by the Court.” Id . at 153. In particular, the district court concluded that Casper “attempted to circ umvent the requirement of using the court-approved form by simply saying ‘see attached’ a nd then attaching his own documents, which [we]re a separate format from the court-approved form and include[d] ‘indexes’ of claims.” Id . The district court noted that it had “specifically informed [Casper] that it would not pi ece together separate filings and/or supplements,” and had “also previously warned [him] that ‘dismissal [wa]s an appropriate disposition agains t a party who disregard[ed] c ourt orders and fail[ed] to proceed as required by court rules.’” Id . (quoting ECF No. 13 at 6). The district court therefore ordered the action “dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the deficiencies and failure to follow court orders.” Id . at 154. The district court also “certifie[d] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from [its] order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status w[ould] be denied for the purpose of appeal.” Id

. Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 78 Final judgment was entered on June 28, 20 23. Casper thereafter filed a timely notice of appeal. Casper has since filed with this court a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
II Federal Rule of Civil Proce dure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a cour t order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R. Co. , 370 U.S. 626, 630–32 (1962) (holding that a district court has inhe rent power to sua sponte dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 41(b)). We review such a dismissal fo r an abuse of discretion. See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents , 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007) . If the dismissal is with prejudice, a district court “must fi rst consider certain criteria.” Id . at 1162. But where, as here, the dismissa l was without prejudice, the “d istrict court may, without abusing its discretion, enter such an or der without attention to any particular procedures.” Id

. After reviewing the record on appeal in th is case, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dism issing Casper’s second amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Wh en the district court denied Casper’s combined motion to set asid e/modify the magistrate judge’s April 27, 2023 order directing him to cure deficien cies in his first amended co mplaint, the district court specifically advised Casper that the distri ct court’s local rule s “require[d] pro se litigants . . . to use the Court-approved forms found on the [district] [c]ourt’s website.” ROA at 116 (citing D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 5.1(c )). The local rule cited by Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 89 the district court, titled “Formatting a nd Filing of Pleadings and Documents and Maintenance of Contact Information by an Unrepresented Prisoner or Party,” states, in relevant part, that “an unrepresented prisoner or party shall use the procedures, forms, and instructions posted on the court’s website” and that “[i]f the unrepresented party is a prisoner and is unable to access the website, on request the clerk shall provide copies of necessary pr ocedures, forms, and instructions.” D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 5.1(c). Casper does not dis pute the existence of this rule or its applicability to his situation. Nor does he offe r any reasoned argument that w ould persuade us that the rule should not be applied in his case. Although Casper ar gues in favor of the format he selected for his original and two am ended complaints, our review of those pleadings persuades us that the presumed underlying pur pose of the local rule, to require the use of court-approved forms in order to help organize and streamline pro se pleadings and, in turn, to facilitate the district court’ s efficient review of those pleadings, is certainly appli cable here. Because Casper refused to comp ly with the local rule and file an am ended complaint that properly utilized the court-approved form, the district court acted well with in its discretion in dismissing the action without prejudice. Lastly, we reject Caspe r’s argument that requiri ng him to use the courtapproved prisoner complaint form violates his constitutional rights by limiting the amount of space he has to detail his allegati ons against the named defendants. As the district court effectively not ed in its orders, and as the court-approved prisoner complaint form itself notes, a prisoner such as Casper may, after completing each Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 910 section of the court-approved prisoner compla int form, attach add itional pages if they believe those pages are necessary to provide more detailed respons es to any of the questions posed in the form. Thus, re quiring Casper to us e the court-approved prisoner complaint form does not in any wa y hamper his ability to pursue his claims against the named defendants. See Young v. United States , 316 F. App’x 764, 771 (10th Cir. 2009) (reje cting pro se litigant’s “constituti onal and other challenges to the District of Colorado’s local rule requiring use of the form by all prisoner litigants”).
III The judgment of the distri ct court is AFFIRMED. Casper’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and his reque st for record on ap peal are DENIED.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 10