UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

PAUL A. MITCHELL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

KAREN MCGOVERN, in her individual 

capacity as Current Program Director of 

the Colorado Medical Board; CHERYL 

HARA, in her individual capacity as 

Former Program Director of the Colorado 

Medical Board, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 15-1109 

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00374-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Paul Mitchell, proceeding pro se,1

 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 

claims against Cheryl Hara and Karen McGovern (“Defendants”). He also requests 

 *

 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

 Because Mitchell is proceeding pro se, we construe his filings liberally. See 

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

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

July 16, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2- 

leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, we conclude that this appeal is frivolous and dismiss. 

I 

Mitchell alleges that Hara, as former Program Director for the Colorado 

Medical Board (“CMB”), improperly suspended his medical license in 2007. 

Additionally, he claims that McGovern, as current Program Director for the CMB, 

has informed him that his suspension will not be lifted until he complies with a 2007 

order requiring that he undergo an evaluation by the Colorado Physician Health 

Program. He asserts that Defendants have violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), and requests injunctive, declaratory, and other relief. 

The violations Mitchell alleges include, inter alia, that Defendants discriminated 

against him because of his race; that the process through which his license was 

terminated was substantively and procedurally flawed; and that Defendants illegally 

interfered with his contractual relationships. 

The district court dismissed Mitchell’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because Mitchell failed to allege facts that demonstrate that 

the Defendants are responsible for the suspension of his license, or can provide his 

requested relief (the reversal of that suspension). It also dismissed as frivolous 

Mitchell’s claims against Hara as untimely and repetitive of prior litigation. Mitchell 

appealed. After filing his opening brief, Mitchell filed two motions seeking to 

expedite and supplement his appeal. 
-3- 

II 

We review a district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for abuse of 

discretion when the frivolousness determination does not turn on an issue of law. 

See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 (10th Cir. 2006). We conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in this regard. On appeal, Mitchell does not 

advance a reasoned challenge to the district court’s determination that he failed to 

allege necessary facts. He contends that he need not show that defendants are 

members of the CMB; that Hara, not the CMB, suspended his license; and that his 

having alleged deprivations of constitutional rights makes immaterial whether 

Defendants can provide his requested relief. But these bald assertions, without 

further support, do not cure his defective complaint. Because Mitchell’s failure to 

allege supporting facts constituted a sufficient basis for the district court to dismiss 

his complaint as frivolous, we need not address his challenge to the district court’s 

additional determination that his claims against Hara are untimely and repetitive of 

prior litigation.

Mitchell also moves to supplement and expedite his appeal but does not 

meaningfully explain why either process would be warranted. He appears to contend 

that the district court’s order dismissing his case was fraudulently authored by a 

judge other than the presiding judge. His evidence for this contention is the court’s 

denial of his motion to certify authorship of the order dismissing his case. We do not 

so construe the denial of Mitchell’s highly unusual motion. 
-4- 

III 

Because Mitchell’s appeal is frivolous, we DISMISS pursuant to 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). For the same reason, we DENY his motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Mitchell’s motions to supplement and expedite his appeal are also DENIED.

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge