UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ TOMAS MARS GARCIA, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. GENE GRABOWSKI; TERRY JAQUES; DEAN WILLIAMS; PAULA ALCORN; CYNTHIA GIERSDORF; CARL STEINKE; KEITH BORDERLON; JOE COLPITTS; JOHN A ND JANE DOES, Defendants - Appellees. No. 24-1042 (D.C. No. 1:22-CV -01587-LTB-SBP) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

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

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Tomas Mars Garcia, a Colo rado state prisoner appearing pro se, appeals from the district c ourt’s dismissal of the 42 U.S. C. § 1983 civil rights action he filed against state correct ional officials. Exercisi ng jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 

### August 19, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 24-1042 Document: 010111096495 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 12 I In April 2022, Garcia, who was then an inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility (LCF) in Limon, Colorado, filed a pro se complaint in Colorado state court against two officials at LCF, the executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDC), and unnamed employe es of LCF and CDC. The complaint alleged a variety of misdeed s by defendants, including, fo r example, moving Garcia from a minimum custody facility to LCF wit hout justification, embezzlement of his prison account funds, and failing to make necessary repairs to the facilities at LCF. Garcia alleged, in relevant part, that defendants’ actions and/or negligence violated his constitutional rights to freedom of spe ech and assembly, due process, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The named defendants removed the case to federal district court and argued the case “should be constr ued as one being brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” R. at 9–10. The district court agreed and concluded removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The dist rict court screened the comp laint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concluded it did “not assert any clear clai ms” and thus failed to “comply with Rule 8 of the Fede ral Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 245. The district court ordered Garc ia to file an amended co mplaint on a court-approved prisoner complaint form w ithin thirty days. Garcia filed an amended complaint on a court-approved prisoner complaint form. The amended complaint alleged thre e claims for relief: (1) that defendants charged Garcia excessive fees for double- sided copies of st ate administrative Appellate Case: 24-1042 Document: 010111096495 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 23 regulations; (2) that defendants tampered with Garcia’s legal mail by tearing off certified mail labels on outgoing envelopes and replacing those labels with priority mail labels, and also by improperly wei ghing Garcia’s outgoing legal mail; and (3) that defendants destroyed Garcia’s “family color pictur es and alter[ed] the color picture to black and white.” Id. at 263. Garcia requested $250,000 in damages for each of these claims. The magistrate judge screened the am ended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and recommended that it be dismi ssed for a number of reasons. To begin with, the magistrate judge concluded that, to the exte nt the amended complaint asserted claims against LCF and CDC employ ees in their official capacities, those claims were subject to dismissal under th e Eleventh Amendment. The magistrate judge in turn concluded that the first clai m in the amended comp laint was subject to dismissal as frivolous because Garcia did not allege that he needed the copies for any specific legal proceeding or cas e and also did “not compla in that his access to the courts was unduly ha mpered because he was charged 50 cents per page” for the copies. Id. at 342. As for the second and thir d claims, both of which related to defendants’ handling of Garcia’s mail, the magistrate judge conc luded that Garcia’s allegations of wrongdoing were “vague an d conclusory” and failed “to show that Defendants acted in a manner unrelated to a legitimate penological interest, in violation of his Firs t Amendment rights.” Id. at 344–45. The magistrate judge therefore recommended that those claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 8. Appellate Case: 24-1042 Document: 010111096495 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 34 After allowing Garcia to file written objections to the ma gistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviewed and adopted the recommendation. The district court therefore di smissed the first claim in the amended complaint “with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),” a nd dismissed the second and third claims “without prejudice for failing to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.” Id.
at 398. Garcia now appeals.
II Garcia challenges only the district court’ s dismissal of the first claim in his amended complaint. We review de novo a district court’s dism issal of a claim or complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). See Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks , 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009). Because Garcia is pr oceeding pro se, we liberally construe his pleadings but “w ill not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10t h Cir. 2013). Section 1915A(a) requires a district cour t to review “a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress fr om a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U. S.C. § 1915A(a). Section 1915A(b) in turn requires a district court to dismiss the complaint or any portion of it that “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). In his appellate brief, Garcia essentia lly repeats the allegations that were contained in the first claim of his amended complaint. That claim, as we have noted, Appellate Case: 24-1042 Document: 010111096495 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 45 alleged that defendants violated Garcia ’s First Amendment rights by overcharging him for copies of state admi nistrative regulations he reque sted. Notably, Garcia did not allege that he needed the copies for use in connection with any legal proceeding or disciplinary hearing. See Requena v. Roberts , 893 F.3d 1195, 1208 –09 (10th Cir. 2018). Nor did Garcia alle ge that the excessive char ges otherwise hampered his access to the courts. In short, Garcia fa iled to tie the allege d overcharging to any protected First Amendment activity. We therefore conclude the district court appropriately dismissed the claim as frivolous under § 1915A(b)(1).
III The judgment of the distri ct court is affirmed. Ga rcia’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied. His “Supplemental for Appointment of Counsel” is also denied.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 24-1042 Document: 010111096495 Date Filed: 08/19/2024 Page: 5