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 CI TY 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 Se rvices; 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: 12 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 Ex ecutive Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , BRISCOE , and CARSON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiffs Gabriel and Bo nnie Robles, appearing pro se, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their civil complain t pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be grante d. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affi rm the district court’s judgment.
I On July 30, 2021, the Robles initiated th ese proceedings by filing a pro se civil complaint naming thirty-one defendants, including the United States, various government officials, televi sion stations, newspapers, a hospital, the chief executive

* 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. Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 23 officers of three credit bureau s, and other entities and indi viduals. In a section of their complaint titled “Stateme nt of Claim,” the Robles al leged that “[e]ach and every defendant . . . has and is violating the Pl aintiffs [sic] Constitu tional rights at will knowing with malice aforethought , the Courts will ignore Fe d. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and cause the Plaintiffs undue burden and expens e by preventing protection from Courts.” ROA at 12. No other underlying facts were alleged in the Robles’ complaint. In the section of their complaint t itled “Relief,” the Robles asked for the “[i]mmediate issuance of [a] Kansas driv ers [sic] license to Plaintif f Gabriel M. Robles based on medical emergency situation caused by defendants [sic] acti ons,” “$10,000,000.00 . . . for causing permanent disability, slande r and libel against Plaintiff Gabriel M. Robles,” and “$9,000,000 for actual and pun itive [damages] for [P laintiff] 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 magi strate judge assigned to th e case issued an order directing the Robles to “each file supplemen tal [financial] affida vits” in support of their motion for leave to proceed IFP. Id . at 17. The Robles complied with that order. On October 14, 2021, the magist rate judge issued a report and recommendation addressing the Robles’ moti on for leave to proceed IFP. The magistrate judge concluded that the Robles’ supplemen tal 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: 34 “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 ordere d to file an amended complaint that complie[d] with the pleading st andards set forth in” Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure
8. Id . The magistrate judge noted in suppor t that the Robles’ original complaint failed to “specify what ac tions each defendant ha[d] taken, when those actions occurred, how those actions harmed [the R obles], and what particular Constitutional rights [the Robles] believe[d] each defendant violated.” Id . at 20. The magistrate judge noted that, because of these deficienci es, 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 pr esented by [the Robles],” including their assertion that they tithed at least a tenth of their inco me, “that they ha[d] made a sufficient showing of inability to pay the filing fees re quired 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: 45 upon which relief [could] be granted.” Id . at 31. More specific ally, the district court agreed with the magistrate j udge that the Robles’ complain t “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief [could] be granted” becaus e it “d[id] not speci fy what actions each Defendant has taken, when those actions occurred, how those actions harmed [the Robles], and what particular constituti onal rights [the Robles] believe each Defendant violated.” Id . at 32. The district court noted that it was thus “unable to infer a deprivation of fede ral or constitutional rights ca used 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 co mplaint should identif y the alleged harm and the specific Defendants res ponsible for such harm.” Id . at 33. The district court also advised the Robles that their failure to f ile an amended complaint would “result in dismissal of th[e] ca se 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 dism issing the case with prejudice. The district c ourt concluded that, “[e]ven generously construing the [Robles’] response as an attempt to amend the Complaint, [they] con tinue[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 cour t 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: 56 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 distri ct 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, accepte d 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 re view, we accept well-plead ed factual allegations as true, view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a nd 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 (1 0th Cir. 2005). But we “cannot take on the responsibility of servi ng as the [pro se] l itigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id . (internal quotation marks omitted). The Robles argue in their appellate br ief that “the dist rict court blocked proceedings and used techni cal rules, insults, and th eft by swindle by waiting for Groundhog day to rule, not re turning filing fee, and concl uding [that their] statements were ‘spurious’ based on personal bias!” Aplt. Br. at 2. The Robles in turn argue that “[e]very judge, lawyer, and defenda nt involved in every case [they] have Appellate Case: 22-3017 Document: 010110671028 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 67 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 se lf-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 al lege what actions each of th e named defendants took that allegedly violated the Robles ’ constitutional rights or othe rwise harmed the Robles. In short, the Robles’ compla int fails to satisfy the plea ding 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 compla int and correct the deficiencies, the Robles refuse d to do so. Consequently, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissi ng the Robles’ complaint.
III The judgment of the dist rict 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