UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA; KIT CARSON 

CORRECTIONAL CENTER, (KCCC); 

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, (CDOC); BOBBY 

BONNER; TIFFANY DAVIS; MRS. 

BANDEL; MR. MANDIS; MR. 

HIMJOSA; MR. SCHWARTZ; MR. 

DEMPSEY; MR. ASTEPHAN; LAURIE 

LECLAIR; JAMES OLSON; MAGGIE 

GIUNTA; TOM MEEK; ANTHONY 

DECESARO; GWENDOLYN GRAMM, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 18-1202 

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-02994-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 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 

August 30, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Joshua Sutton appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

suit for failure to pay filing fees or comply with the requirements to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

I 

Sutton alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his treatment 

for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. After Sutton filed his complaint, a magistrate 

judge ordered Sutton to either pay the filing fee or cure deficiencies in his IFP 

application within thirty days. Sutton submitted a supplemental IFP application, but 

failed to include a proper copy of his prison trust fund account statement. The 

magistrate judge issued a second order identifying this deficiency and granting 

Sutton an additional thirty days to file a complete, updated inmate account 

statement.1

 The order warned that failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the 

action. Sutton failed to file an updated inmate account statement, and the district 

court dismissed the case without prejudice. Sutton filed a post-judgment motion 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, which the district court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 

motion, and denied. Sutton timely appealed. 

II 

We review a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for abuse of discretion. 

Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). 

 1

 The minute order incorrectly stated that Sutton’s statement was limited to 

July 2017. Although the statement includes additional time periods, it does not 

include the full six-month period prior to the filing of the complaint. 
3 

We also review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. Ysais v. 

Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2010). Because Sutton is pro se, we 

construe his filings liberally but stop short of acting as his advocate. Hall v. 

Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Sutton asserts that he included a complete trust fund account statement with 

his motion to reconsider. Although he referenced such an attachment in his motion, 

the document is not in the record. Sutton does not provide any basis to conclude that 

the document was actually attached to his motion when submitted to the district court 

or that the court deliberately excluded it from the record, as he speculates on appeal. 

We thus hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 

III 

AFFIRMED. Sutton’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is GRANTED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge