UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

GABRIEL M. ROBLES; BONNIE 

ROBLES, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LOUIS 

DEJOY, Postmaster General; DEREK 

SCHMIDT, Attorney General, State of 

Kansas; MICHELLE DE LA ISLA, Mayor, 

City of Topeka; LISA ROBERTSON, City 

Attorney, City of Topeka; MIKE KAGAY, 

District Attorney, Shawnee County; 

DENNIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs; ABC NEWS, and local 

affiliate; NBC NEWS, and local affiliate; 

FOX NEWS, and local affiliate; CBS 

NEWS, and local affiliate; TOPEKA 

CAPITAL-JOURNAL, and parent 

company; KANSAS CITY STAR, and the 

McClatchy Company; JOHN 

WEICHMAN, Midwest Housing Equity 

Group, Herman & Kittle; PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Paradise 

Plaza; UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 

HEALTH SYSTEM, St. Francis campus; 

SCOTT HARRIS; JEFF ADKINS; MIKE 

DUGGAN; FNU BURTON, Doctor, 

Second Chance Services; CORRIE 

WRIGHT, Shelter Plus Care; KANSAS 

AGING AND DISABILITY SERVICES; 

BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Kansas Aging and 

Disability Services; CHRISTINA L. 

GREGG, Kansas Aging and Disability 

Services; JOSEPH H. HUNT, Kansas 

Aging and Disability Services; ROBERT 

E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Kansas Aging and 

No. 22-3017 

(D.C. No. 5:21-CV-04047-JAR-ADM) 

(D. Kan.) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 14, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 1
2 

Disability Services; L. MISHA PREHEIM, 

Kansas Aging and Disability Services; 

KARA M. WESTERCAMP, Department 

of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division; EXPERIAN, Chief 

Executive Officer; EQUIFAX, Chief 

Executive Officer; CONSUMER 

CELLULAR, Chief Executive Officer, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiffs Gabriel and Bonnie Robles, appearing pro se, appeal the district 

court’s dismissal of their civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Exercising jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

I 

On July 30, 2021, the Robles initiated these proceedings by filing a pro se civil 

complaint naming thirty-one defendants, including the United States, various 

government officials, television stations, newspapers, a hospital, the chief executive 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 2
3 

officers of three credit bureaus, and other entities and individuals. In a section of 

their complaint titled “Statement of Claim,” the Robles alleged that “[e]ach and every 

defendant . . . has and is violating the Plaintiffs [sic] Constitutional rights at will 

knowing with malice aforethought, the Courts will ignore Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and 

cause the Plaintiffs undue burden and expense by preventing protection from Courts.” 

ROA at 12. No other underlying facts were alleged in the Robles’ complaint. In the 

section of their complaint titled “Relief,” the Robles asked for the “[i]mmediate 

issuance of [a] Kansas drivers [sic] license to Plaintiff Gabriel M. Robles based on 

medical emergency situation caused by defendants [sic] actions,” “$10,000,000.00 . . 

. for causing permanent disability, slander and libel against Plaintiff Gabriel M. 

Robles,” and “$9,000,000 for actual and punitive [damages] for [Plaintiff] Bonnie 

Robles.” Id. at 13. Along with their complaint, the Robles filed a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 

On August 10, 2021, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued an order 

directing the Robles to “each file supplemental [financial] affidavits” in support of 

their motion for leave to proceed IFP. Id. at 17. The Robles complied with that 

order. 

On October 14, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a report and 

recommendation addressing the Robles’ motion for leave to proceed IFP. The 

magistrate judge concluded that the Robles’ supplemental financial affidavits 

demonstrated that they had sufficient “cash . . . on hand to pay the filing fee and still 

meet their monthly expenses.” Id. at 19. Consequently, the magistrate judge 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 3
4 

“recommend[ed] that [their] motion be denied and that [they] be ordered to pay the 

required filing fee within fourteen days.” Id. The magistrate judge also 

“recommend[ed] that [the Robles] be ordered to file an amended complaint that 

complie[d] with the pleading standards set forth in” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

8. Id. The magistrate judge noted in support that the Robles’ original complaint 

failed to “specify what actions each defendant ha[d] taken, when those actions 

occurred, how those actions harmed [the Robles], and what particular Constitutional 

rights [the Robles] believe[d] each defendant violated.” Id. at 20. The magistrate 

judge noted that, because of these deficiencies, the “[d]efendants d[id] not have fair 

notice of the specific claims that [the Robles] assert[ed] against them.” Id. 

The Robles filed written objections to the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and they opposed having to pay the required filing fee or filing an 

amended complaint. 

On January 19, 2022, the district court issued a memorandum and order 

sustaining the Robles’ objections in part and granting their motion for leave to 

proceed IFP. In doing so, the district court noted the issue was “a close call,” but it 

concluded, “based upon the information presented by [the Robles],” including their 

assertion that they tithed at least a tenth of their income, “that they ha[d] made a 

sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fees required to prosecute this 

action.” Id. at 30. “[E]ven though” it concluded that the Robles “[we]re entitled to 

proceed IFP,” the district court concluded that “their Complaint [wa]s subject to 

dismissal” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) “because they fail[ed] to state a claim 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 4
5 

upon which relief [could] be granted.” Id. at 31. More specifically, the district court 

agreed with the magistrate judge that the Robles’ complaint “fail[ed] to state a claim 

upon which relief [could] be granted” because it “d[id] not specify what actions each 

Defendant has taken, when those actions occurred, how those actions harmed [the 

Robles], and what particular constitutional rights [the Robles] believe each 

Defendant violated.” Id. at 32. The district court noted that it was thus “unable to 

infer a deprivation of federal or constitutional rights caused by the Defendants for 

[the Robles] to proceed with their purported claims.” Id. The district court therefore 

granted the Robles “leave to file an amended complaint . . . within fourteen days,” 

and it advised them that “[a]ny amended complaint should identify the alleged harm 

and the specific Defendants responsible for such harm.” Id. at 33. The district court 

also advised the Robles that their failure to file an amended complaint would “result 

in dismissal of th[e] case in its entirety.” Id. 

The Robles filed a written response objecting to the portion of the district 

court’s memorandum and order directing them to file an amended complaint. But the 

Robles otherwise made no attempt to file an amended complaint. 

On February 1, 2022, the district court issued an order dismissing the case with 

prejudice. The district court concluded that, “[e]ven generously construing the 

[Robles’] response as an attempt to amend the Complaint, [they] continue[d] to fail to 

identify the alleged harms and the specific Defendants responsible for such harms as 

required by Rule 8(a).” Id. at 40. The district court therefore ordered the case 

“dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 5
6 

claim upon which relief [could] be granted.” Id. at 41. Judgment was entered in the 

case that same day. 

The Robles filed a timely notice of appeal. 

II 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 

165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999). To survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In conducting our review, we accept well-pleaded factual allegations as 

true, view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and draw all reasonable 

inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Brooks v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 985 F.3d 1272, 

1281 (10th Cir. 2021). We also liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s complaint. See 

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But 

we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the [pro se] litigant’s attorney in 

constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

The Robles argue in their appellate brief that “the district court blocked 

proceedings and used technical rules, insults, and theft by swindle by waiting for 

Groundhog day to rule, not returning filing fee, and concluding [that their] statements 

were ‘spurious’ based on personal bias!” Aplt. Br. at 2. The Robles in turn argue 

that “[e]very judge, lawyer, and defendant involved in every case [they] have 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 6
7 

presented for trial is guilty of a felony act as cited in 18 U.S.C. §241 [sic] & §242 

[sic], and under criminal & civil RICO statutes.” Id. at 3. The Robles also argue that 

“[d]ue to the [district] court[’s] own self-serving bias and greed,” it “denied the 

[Robles] their day in court to present evidence to a jury of their peers.” Id. at 4. 

Ultimately, the Robles ask this court to “issue judgment in [their] favor . . . as 

requested.” Id. 

We reject the Robles’ arguments. As the district court correctly noted, the 

Robles’ complaint fails to allege what actions each of the named defendants took that 

allegedly violated the Robles’ constitutional rights or otherwise harmed the Robles. 

In short, the Robles’ complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standards for a complaint 

that are outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). And, although the district 

court afforded the Robles an opportunity to amend their complaint and correct the 

deficiencies, the Robles refused to do so. Consequently, we conclude that the district 

court did not err in dismissing the Robles’ complaint. 

III 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 7