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 prisoner appearing pro se, filed a lengthy, 

handwritten civil rights complaint asserting approximately twenty-four claims against 

various individuals employed by the Pitkin County (Colorado) Sheriff’s Office. The 

magistrate judge ordered Casper to refile his complaint using a court-approved 

prisoner complaint form. Casper responded by filing an amended complaint on a 

* 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 

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. 

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: 1
2 

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 complete the sections of the approved form. 

Casper filed a second amended complaint. Although the first portion of the second 

amended complaint included a court-approved prisoner complaint form, Casper again 

failed to substantially complete the form and instead attached to the form a 

handwritten complaint that was similar to his original complaint. 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 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Casper’s motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

I 

On February 24, 2023, Casper initiated these federal proceedings by filing 

three pro se pleadings: a seventy-page civil rights complaint, 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 handwritten by Casper on blank sheets of paper. 

The cover sheet of the complaint stated: “Civil Rights Complaint Filed under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “Pattern of Constitutional Deprivation(s) Suffered from 

Pitkin, Colorado Sheriff’s Department.” ROA at 5. The complaint alleged, in 

relevant part, that Casper was incarcerated at a Colorado state correctional facility in 

Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 2
3 

Sterling, Colorado, but had previously been confined at the Pitkin County (Colorado) 

Jail. The complaint named as defendants “Sheriff Joe DiSalvo,” “Commander Kim 

Vallario,” two “[a]rresting sheriff deputies: Brad Gibson” and “Levi Borst,” and four 

“[j]ail based deputies: Sara Roush, Jairo Garcia, Zane Cisneros, [and] Martin 

Gonzalez.” Id. at 7. The body of the complaint alleged twenty-four separate civil 

rights claims against the named 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 the case issued an 

order directing Casper to cure certain deficiencies in his § 1915 motion and in his 

complaint. The order noted that Casper’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 preceding th[e] filing” and “authorization 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-approved Prisoner Complaint form.” Id. The order directed 

Casper to “cure” the identified deficiencies “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 “Plaintiff” and the “Defendant(s),” Casper 

handwrote his name and the names of the defendants. 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 sentence: “See attached complaint for all (8) 

Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 3
4 

defendants.” Id. at 82. Similarly, on the fourth page of the form, which asked him to 

“[s]tate clearly and concisely every claim that you are asserting in this action,” 

Casper handwrote the following: “See attached complaint for numerous claim(s), 

defendant participation, damages, & 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 “attached complaint,” however, there were no 

documents attached to or otherwise submitted 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 pursuant 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 motion and his amended complaint. The order 

noted that Casper’s new § 1915 motion was “missing [a] certified copy of [Casper’s] 

trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding th[e] filing.” Id. 

at 98. As for Casper’s amended complaint, the order noted: 

Plaintiff must submit a complete prisoner complaint on the 

court-approved form. The Court will not piece together separate filings 

and/or supplements. Instead, a complete 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: 4
5 

Id. at 99. The order directed Casper to cure these deficiencies 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 date of the order, “the action w[ould] be 

dismissed without further notice.” Id. at 100. 

On April 24, 2023, Casper filed a handwritten motion titled “Combined motion 

to set aside/modify magistrate 4/7/23 ‘Second 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 overly restrictive space 

limitations of the ‘court approved complaint form.’” Id. Casper asserted in support 

that “the ‘court approved’ form d[id] not have adequate space 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 argued that “the legal strategy of 

the extensive initial filing of the case [wa]s deliberate to the extent the effort ‘m[ight] 

serve’ to support ‘potential’ settlement avenues.” Id. at 103. Ultimately, Casper 

argued that requiring him to use a court-approved complaint form was “both 

unreasonable and unconstitutional.” Id. at 107. Casper therefore asked the district 

court to “accept [his] complaint and all supporting documents” that had previously 

been filed. Id. at 110. 

On May 17, 2023, the district court issued an order denying Casper’s 

combined motion “as to the request that he not be required to use the court-approved 

Prisoner complaint form,” but “grant[ing] in part as to his request to exceed page 

Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 5
6 

limitations.” Id. at 116. The district court explained that “[a]s to the requirement 

that [Casper] submit his Prisoner Complaint 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 that 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 Circuit ha[d] repeatedly 

upheld the requirement that pro se litigants comply with local rules requiring use of 

proper court-approved forms, and ha[d] rejected constitutional challenges to such 

rules.” Id. at 116–17 (citing several unpublished Tenth Circuit cases). As for 

Casper’s “request to exceed page limitations,” the district court granted that request 

“in part” and ordered that Casper’s “Amended Prisoner Complaint may be up to 45 

(forty-five) pages.” Id. at 117. The district court advised Casper, however, “that he 

must use the court-approved prisoner complaint 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 pleading d[id] not need to have an ‘introduction’ 

section or a ‘caselaw’ section.” Id. at 118. The district court afforded Casper thirty 

days to file an amended complaint that complied with the court’s directives and noted 

that if he “fail[ed] to cure the deficiencies as directed within the time allowed, the 

action w[ould] be dismissed without further notice.” Id. at 119. 

On May 24, 2023, Casper filed a second 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 part, incomplete. Casper listed 

Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 6
7 

himself as the plaintiff and provided his address. But he did not list any of the 

defendants and instead referred to attachments 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 submitted with the form. 

Id. at 129, 131. Notably, that attachment was a handwritten 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 circumvent the requirement of 

using the court-approved form by simply saying ‘see attached’ and 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 piece together separate filings and/or 

supplements,” and had “also previously warned [him] that ‘dismissal [wa]s an 

appropriate disposition against a party who disregard[ed] court 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: 7
8 

Final judgment was entered on June 28, 2023. 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 Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an 

action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court 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 inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 41(b)). 

We review such a dismissal for 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 first consider certain criteria.” Id. at 1162. But 

where, as here, the dismissal was without prejudice, the “district court may, without 

abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular 

procedures.” Id. 

After reviewing the record on appeal in this case, we conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Casper’s second amended complaint 

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). When the district court denied Casper’s 

combined motion to set aside/modify the magistrate judge’s April 27, 2023 order 

directing him to cure deficiencies in his first amended complaint, the district court 

specifically advised Casper that the district court’s local rules “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: 8
9 

the district court, titled “Formatting and 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 procedures, forms, and instructions.” D.C. Colo. L. Civ. 

R. 5.1(c). Casper does not dispute the existence of this rule or its applicability to his 

situation. Nor does he offer any reasoned argument that would persuade us that the 

rule should not be applied in his case. Although Casper argues in favor of the format 

he selected for his original and two amended complaints, our review of those 

pleadings persuades us that the presumed underlying purpose 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 applicable here. Because Casper refused to comply with the 

local rule and file an amended complaint that properly utilized the court-approved 

form, the district court acted well within its discretion in dismissing the action 

without prejudice. 

Lastly, we reject Casper’s argument that requiring him to use the courtapproved prisoner complaint form violates his constitutional rights by limiting the 

amount of space he has to detail his allegations against the named defendants. As the 

district court effectively noted 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: 9
10 

section of the court-approved prisoner complaint form, attach additional pages if they 

believe those pages are necessary to provide more detailed responses to any of the 

questions posed in the form. Thus, requiring Casper to use the court-approved 

prisoner complaint form does not in any way 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) (rejecting pro se litigant’s “constitutional 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 district court is AFFIRMED. Casper’s motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal and his request for record on appeal are DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 23-1229 Document: 010111001224 Date Filed: 02/15/2024 Page: 10