UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

JAMES M. BERTOLO, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

TOM BENEZEE, Lieutenant CTCF; R. 

VIOLA, CTCF Mailroom; M. GARCIA, 

CTCF Mailroom; DIANE MILLER, 

CTCF Mailroom; MIKLICH, Major, 

CTCF Reading Committee; WORTHEN, 

Lieutenant, CTCF Reading Committee; 

JOY HART, CTCF Reading Committee; 

KEITH NORDELL; MARSHALL 

GRIFFITH; STEVE HAGER; SUSAN 

JONES; MIRA LONGGLOSS; BURL 

MCCULLAR; KIRK MACHIN, all 

CDOC Springs Employees and Members 

of Central Reading Committee, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 13-1163 

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02822-WJM-BNB) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. 

 

*

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 4, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

 

 James Bertolo, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we 

affirm. 

I. Background 

The Order Adopting the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge and Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss sets out the relevant facts, so the 

court will provide only a brief overview of the pertinent facts. See R., Vol. I at 350. 

Bertolo, a designated sex offender, was transferred to the Colorado Territorial 

Correctional Facility (“CTCF”), but did not receive his medications for several days, 

resulting in his apparent mental disorientation. During his disoriented state, 

Lieutenant Tom Benezee gave Bertolo a disciplinary infraction, confiscated his 

photos and magazines, and suspended his telephone privileges. Bertolo was also 

required to sign AR Form 300-26E, an agreement specifying the limitations on his 

reading material, which he alleged was more restrictive than the agreement with his 

previous facility. 

Bertolo filed a pro se complaint against defendants in their individual and 

official capacities, alleging a deprivation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court ordered Bertolo to amend 

his complaint multiple times due to, in part, his failure to use the court-approved 

complaint form and allege the personal participation of all named defendants. 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

 The district court dismissed as parties the Colorado Department of 

Corrections, based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Pamela Ploughe and 

Robbie Bolton for lack of personal participation in a constitutional deprivation. The 

court also dismissed Bertolo’s § 1983 claims alleging: a violation of the Montez 

Remedial Plan; the denial of his constitutional right of access to the court; and 

violations of the Freedom of Information Act, Federal Privacy Act, and Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 

 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on Bertolo’s 

remaining claims: (1) John/Jane Doe “Department of Corrections contract workers 

employees” violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care; 

(2) Benezee deprived him of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by 

confiscating personal property from his cell; (3) Benezee deprived him of his First 

and Sixth Amendment rights when he restricted his communications with his wife 

and attorney; and (4) the CTCF mail room staff and Reading Committee members 

deprived him of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by rejecting his mail. 

 A magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion and dismissing 

Bertolo’s remaining claims. Bertolo filed a motion for reconsideration, which the 

district court construed as Bertolo’s objection to the magistrate judge’s 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

recommendation.1

 Bertolo also filed a motion for extension of time to amend his 

complaint. The district court erroneously concluded that Bertolo’s objections were 

timely but, nonetheless, reviewed the objections de novo after finding that they were 

not specific. The district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge 

and dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 

Bertolo’s Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, and First and Sixth 

Amendment claims for telephone restrictions. The district court dismissed all other 

claims with prejudice and denied Bertolo’s motion to amend his complaint. 

II. Discussion 

 We construe Bertolo’s filings liberally because he is proceeding pro se, but we 

will not act as his advocate. See Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 

(10th Cir. 2009). As best we can discern, Bertolo argues that the district court 

erroneously: (1) dismissed Bolton and Ploughe for failure to allege personal 

participation; (2) dismissed his First and Sixth Amendment claims for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies; and (3) denied his requests to amend his complaint 

and appoint an attorney. 

 

1

 The magistrate judge’s recommendation, which was entered on November 14, 

2012, ordered the parties to file any objections within 14 days. Bertolo untimely 

responded on December 14, 2012. 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

A. March 8, 2012 Dismissal Order 

Bertolo argues that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against 

Ploughe, the Warden of CTCF, and Bolton, a CTCF therapeutic counselor, for lack of 

personal participation. 

We review the district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1067. To state a 

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally 

participated in the alleged deprivation of a constitutional right. See Trujillo v. 

Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1227 (10th Cir. 2006). 

Bertolo alleged that Ploughe deprived him of his constitutional rights when she 

failed to enforce orientation procedures, failed to timely administer mental health 

care, denied his appeals regarding Benezee’s charges against him, and ignored his 

requests to meet regarding Benezee’s conduct. But, supervisory status without more 

does not create § 1983 liability. Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1069. A supervisor may be 

liable where a plaintiff can establish an affirmative link between the constitutional 

deprivation and the supervisor’s personal participation, exercise of control, or his 

failure to supervise. Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F. 3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Nevertheless, Bertolo did not allege that Ploughe’s role was more than “one of 

abstract authority over individuals who actually committed a constitutional 

violation.” Id. Further, “a denial of a grievance, by itself without any connection to 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff, does not establish personal 

participation under § 1983.” Gallagher, 587 F.3d at 1069. 

Bertolo alleged that Bolton denied him access to the appropriate phase classes 

for sex offenders and imposed restrictions, not as a result of a proper evaluation, but 

in retaliation for Bertolo’s wife “being so young appearing, and loving.” R., Vol. I at 

68. As the district court correctly noted, even liberally construed, Bertolo’s 

allegations could not constitute violations of his constitutional rights because he had 

no liberty interest in being enrolled in sex offender classes, and Bertolo did not 

otherwise allege that Bolton was personally involved in the alleged deprivations that 

were not dismissed. 

Accordingly, Ploughe and Bolton were properly dismissed for the reasons 

provided by the district court in its Order to Dismiss, dated March 8, 2012. 

B. March 22, 2013 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

i. Waived Issues 

We reach the merits on the appeal of this order, despite Bertolo’s untimely 

objection to the magistrate judge’s report, because defendants forfeited any 

untimeliness claim by not raising it in their brief on appeal. See Hicks v. Franklin, 

546 F.3d 1279, 1283 n.3 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that failure to timely object to a 

magistrate judge’s report is not jurisdictional, and therefore subject to forfeiture, if 

the claim is not raised and preserved). Bertolo has, however, forfeited appellate 

review of the district court’s rulings on the following claims by failing to raise them 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

in his brief on appeal: claims against defendants in their official capacities for 

monetary damages, First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the mail room 

staff and Reading Committee, and claim that he was deprived of his due process 

rights when Benezee confiscated photos and materials from his cell. See Bronson v. 

Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“the omission of an issue in an 

opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue.”). 

In addition, Bertolo has affirmatively waived his claim that he did not receive 

adequate medical care. Bertolo states in his brief that he intended to dismiss this 

issue himself so that he could address it at a later date. 

ii. Bertolo’s First and Sixth Amendment Claims 

The only issues remaining for our review from the district court’s order dated 

March 22, 2013, are Bertolo’s First and Sixth Amendment claims alleging improper 

restriction of telephone privileges. The district court dismissed these claims for lack 

of exhaustion. 

We review de novo a district court’s finding that a plaintiff failed to exhaust 

administrative remedies. Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245, 1249 (10th Cir. 2010). We 

have carefully reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and we affirm the district 

court’s dismissal of these claims for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s 

thorough and well-supported Amended Order and Recommendation, as adopted by 

the district court. 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 7 
- 8 - 

C. Bertolo’s Requests to Amend his Complaint and Appoint Counsel 

Bertolo argues that the district court erred in denying his requests to amend his 

complaint and appoint an attorney. Bertolo seems to contend that if he had been 

allowed to amend his complaint, or if the court had granted his request for an 

attorney, the remainder of his issues would not have been dismissed. 

“We review the district court’s decision to deny leave to amend a complaint 

for an abuse of discretion.” Hertz v. Luzenac Grp., 576 F.3d 1103, 1117 (10th Cir. 

2009). “When denial is based on a determination that amendment would be futile, 

our review for abuse of discretion includes de novo review of the legal basis for the 

finding of futility.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We also review the 

denial of appointment of counsel in a civil case for an abuse of discretion. 

See DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 979 (10th Cir. 1993). 

Bertolo argues that the court should have allowed him to amend his complaint 

a fourth time to include new evidence that his disciplinary violation, from which 

many of his issues stemmed, had been expunged. The district court found, however, 

that the disciplinary violation had no effect on the legal errors and pleading 

deficiencies leading to the dismissal of his claims. For the reasons stated by the 

district court, the motion was properly denied. See Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 

1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that proposed amendment is futile if the 

amended complaint would be subject to dismissal); see also Hall v. Witteman, 

584 F.3d 859, 868 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that district courts are not required to 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 8 
- 9 - 

engage in additional research or read the minds of parties to determine whether an 

amendment is justified).

Additionally, Bertolo argues that the court erred in denying his request for 

appointment of counsel in its order dated March 21, 2012. The district court denied 

Bertolo’s request for an attorney after finding that Bertolo had adequately presented 

his claims, which were not complex or meritorious. 

A district court may appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff if, under the 

totality of the circumstances, the denial of counsel would result in a fundamentally 

unfair proceeding, considering “the merits of the litigant’s claims, the nature of the 

factual issues raised in the claims, the litigant’s ability to present his claims, and the 

complexity of the legal issues raised by the claims.” Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 

978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); McCarthy v. Weinberg, 

753 F.2d 836, 839-840 (10th Cir. 1985). 

In support of this claim, Bertolo alleged that he has “serious medical concerns 

and complexities,” though he did not indicate how his condition would affect his 

ability to present his case. See R., Vol. I at 95; see also McCarthy, 753 F.2d at 839 

(concluding that the district court erred in denying plaintiff’s request for counsel 

where record evidence showed plaintiff’s multiple sclerosis affected his eyesight, 

hearing, and abilities to communicate, read the record, and understand the 

proceedings). Moreover, Bertolo’s filings demonstrated his familiarity with legal 

concepts like motions to amend and exhaustion of administrative remedies. We have 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 9 
- 10 - 

reviewed the record and agree that Bertolo adequately presented the issues in his 

case, which were not particularly complex or meritorious. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bertolo’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. 

D. Fees 

Bertolo has moved to proceed on appeal without payment of costs or fees. 

Bertolo first requested the district court’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal. The district court denied Bertolo’s motion pursuant to § 1915(a)(3), 

finding no reasoned, non-frivolous argument and, therefore, that the appeal was not 

taken in good faith. 

We agree with the district court as to the absence of a reasoned, non-frivolous 

argument on the law and facts in support of the issues he raises on appeal. 

Accordingly, we DENY his motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

or fees. Fee payment shall continue pursuant to this court’s order entered on June 11, 

2013. 

 The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Stephen H. Anderson 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 13-1163 Document: 01019380620 Date Filed: 02/04/2015 Page: 10