UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

PATRICK M. ZIMMER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GORDON P. GALLAGHER, Magistrate 

Judge, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

Nos. 22-1270, 22-1271, 22-1272, 22-1273, 

22-1274, 22-1275

(D.C. Nos. 1:22-CV-02013-LTB,

1:22-CV-02018-LTB, 1:22-CV-02019-

LTB, 1:22-CV-02022-LTB, 1:22-CV02021-LTB, 1:22-CV-02016-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Patrick M. Zimmer, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s summary 

dismissals of his six nearly identical complaints on the grounds they were frivolous, 

malicious, and abusive. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i). Exercising jurisdiction 

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

unanimously to honor the appellant’s 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 

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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 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

December 6, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-1270 Document: 010110778141 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 1
2

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. We deny his 

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”) on appeal.

1

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Zimmer filed six civil actions against Magistrate Judge Gallagher, each (1) 

alleging that Magistrate Judge Gallagher’s actions and orders in a separate case

violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) seeking five million 

dollars in damages. 

The district court summarily dismissed the cases, stating they “appear to be 

nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the assignment of judges in Plaintiff’s 

cases” and “are malicious and abusive for that reason.” ROA at 9-11. It further 

stated that sovereign immunity bars a claim asserted against a federal officer in his 

official capacity, and absolute immunity bars suits seeking money damages against 

judges exercising their judicial discretion. 

Mr. Zimmer filed a notice of appeal. The district court denied leave to appeal 

ifp under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), which provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken 

in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good 

faith,” as the district court did here.

1 Because Mr. Zimmer appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but 

we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 

2013).

Appellate Case: 22-1270 Document: 010110778141 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 2
3

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s dismissal of claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) for abuse of discretion. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1259 

(10th Cir. 2006). If the frivolousness determination turns on an issue of law, our 

review is de novo. Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333, 1335 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003).

Mr. Zimmer argues that under Harper v. McDonald, 679 F.2d 955 (D.C. Cir. 

1982), cases brought under the constitutional amendments are not frivolous. Aplt. 

Br. at 2. Beyond stating that oral argument will not be necessary, he leaves the rest 

of the pro se appeal brief form blank. Id. at 3-4.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. When a plaintiff proceeds ifp

before the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires judges to dismiss the proceeding 

“at any time if the court determines” that it “is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). Rather than appeal the district court’s unfavorable ruling in his

separate case, Mr. Zimmer filed six suits against Magistrate Judge Gallagher. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that these suits were 

“frivolous, malicious, and abusive.” ROA at 9.

Mr. Zimmer’s reliance on Harper v. McDonald is unavailing. In Harper, the 

D.C. Circuit explained that the district court possessed jurisdiction over claims made 

“directly under the Constitution” when, unlike Mr. Zimmer’s claims here, they were 

neither “wholly insubstantial nor frivolous.” 679 F.2d at 956 (quotations omitted).

Because Mr. Zimmer lists no other issues on these appeals, any other 

arguments he made before the district court are waived. See Burke v. Regalado, 935 

Appellate Case: 22-1270 Document: 010110778141 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 3
4

F.3d 960, 995 (10th Cir. 2019) (“The failure to raise an issue in an opening brief 

waives that issue.” (quotations omitted)). And even if Mr. Zimmer had properly 

presented other arguments in this appeal, we agree with the district court that 

sovereign immunity and absolute immunity shield Magistrate Judge Gallagher from 

suit. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Andrews v. Heaton, 

483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007).

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the six actions as frivolous, dismiss 

these appeals as frivolous, and assess a strike against Mr. Zimmer under the Prisoner 

Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e).

2 Because Mr. Zimmer fails to show 

“the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support 

of the issues raised in his action,” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 

(10th Cir. 2005), we deny his motion for leave to proceed ifp on appeal. Mr. Zimmer 

is obligated to pay the filing fee in full for each of his appeals.

3

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.

Circuit Judge

2 Because Mr. Zimmer has accrued more than three strikes, he may no longer 

proceed ifp in any civil action filed in federal court unless he is in imminent danger 

of physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 

1218, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2002).

3 Mr. Zimmer’s Notice, filed on November 28, 2022, does not raise 

meritorious arguments or alter this disposition. 

Appellate Case: 22-1270 Document: 010110778141 Date Filed: 12/06/2022 Page: 4