UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ADAM STREGE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SSA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 21-1311 

(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03084-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Adam Strege, proceeding pro se,1

 appeals the district court’s orders on his 

post-judgment filings, including an amended complaint and motions to appoint a case 

manager to assist with electronic filing. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 

*

 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. 

1

 We liberally construe Mr. Strege’s filings but “cannot take on the 

responsibility of serving as [his] attorney.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & 

Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 18, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 1
2 

In 2020, Mr. Strege filed a pro se complaint against the Commissioner of the 

Social Security Administration. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), explaining that the complaint “describe[d] a 

fantastic or delusional scenario of the government swapping babies and putting 

human hearts in nuclear reactors” and that “[t]he nonsensical allegations do not 

support an arguable claim for relief, whether the claim is for false arrest, malicious 

prosecution, or review of a Social Security determination.” R., vol. 1 at 52 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). The court also warned “that repetitive filings in this action 

may result in the imposition of sanctions, such as filing restrictions.” Id. at 53. 

Mr. Strege then appealed, and we dismissed the appeal as frivolous, noting that he 

“present[ed] conclusory and fantastical assertions” and failed to “explain[] the basis 

of his underlying claims.” Strege v. Comm’r, 848 F. App’x 368, 370 (10th Cir. 

2021). 

After our mandate issued, Mr. Strege filed an amended complaint in district 

court, again raising fantastical and incoherent allegations. In a minute order, the 

court explained it was taking no action on Mr. Strege’s filing because the case had 

been dismissed with prejudice. The court also repeated its warning regarding the 

potential for sanctions. Undeterred, Mr. Strege filed two motions to appoint a case 

manager and a motion seeking assistance with electronic filing. Echoing its prior 

order, the court denied the motions because the case had been dismissed and 

reiterated its warning regarding possible sanctions. Mr. Strege appealed. 

Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 2
3 

“[D]istrict courts generally have broad discretion to manage their dockets.” 

Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134, 1140 (10th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, as with his prior appeal, Mr. Strege’s 

brief contains only unintelligible ramblings. He offers no coherent argument, let 

alone one that “explain[s] what was wrong with the reasoning that the district court 

relied on in reaching its decision.” Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 

1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, because “it lacks an arguable basis in either law 

or fact,” Mr. Strege’s appeal is frivolous. Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222 

(10th Cir. 2002). 

We therefore dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). 

We also deny his motion for a resolution of his appeal as moot. We warn Mr. Strege 

that he could be subject to filing restrictions in this court if he submits further 

frivolous filings. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008); Andrews 

v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007). And we deny his motion to 

proceed without prepayment of costs or fees due to the lack of “a reasoned, 

nonfrivolous argument.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 

1991). We remind Mr. Strege that he remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 3