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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

1 We liberally construe Mr. Strege ’s filings but “ca nnot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quota tion 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: 12 In 2020, Mr. Strege filed a pro se co mplaint against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The distri ct court dismissed th e action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), expl aining that the compla int “describe[d] a fantastic or delusional scenario of th e government swapping babies and putting human hearts in nuclear r eactors” and that “[t]he nons ensical 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 wa rned “that repetitive fi lings in this action may result in the imposition of sancti ons, such as filing restrictions.” Id. at 53. Mr. Strege then appealed, and we dismisse d the appeal as frivol ous, noting that he “present[ed] conclusory and fantastical as sertions” 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 f iled an amended complaint in district court, again raising fantastical and incohe rent allegations. In a minute order, the court explained it was taking no action on Mr. Strege’s fi ling because the case had been dismissed with prejudice. The court also repeated its warning regarding the potential for sanctions. Undeterred, Mr. St rege 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 b ecause the case had b een dismissed and reiterated its warning regarding possi ble sanctions. Mr. Strege appealed. Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 23 “[D]istrict courts generall y have broad discretion to manage their dockets.” Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 590 F.3d 1134, 11 40 (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] wh at was wrong with the reasoni ng 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 fri volous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). We also deny his motion for a resolution of hi s 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