UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. DR. RICHARD POUNDS; MANUEL ESPINOZA; KAREN PARTEN (OR PORTER); LARRY MINAZUMI, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1174 (D.C. No. 1:17- CV-02378-LTB) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Joshua Sutton appeals the distri ct court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Exercising jurisdiction un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affir m. I Sutton alleges that, while he was an inmate of the Colorado Dep artment of Corrections (“CDOC”), he received treatment from defendants at the Colorado

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously to honor the parties ’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefore submitted without oral argument. T his order and judgment is no t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, an d 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 

### August 21, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (“CMHIP”). He contends that defendants diagnosed him with mental illnes ses but did not inform him of t hese diagnoses. Sutton claims that he was then sent back to prison, even while other patients were not. He further avers that he wa s abused in prison, both by ot her inmates and prison staff. Sutton filed a complaint in distr ict court, alleging that defen dants had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by s ubjecting him to cruel and unus ual punishment. After the district court ordered Sutton to file an amended comp laint, he added due process and equal protection cl aims. The district court dismis sed Sutton’s claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915( e)(2)(B). Sutton now appeals.
II We review the dismissal of a s uit under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for abu se of discretion. McWilliams v. Color ado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). Because Sutton is pro se, we c onstrue his filings liberally but stop short of acting as his advocate. Hall v. Bellmon, 9 35 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Sutton argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the suit without granting him further le ave to amend. He claims that, b ecause he had no access to the law library at the time, he was unable to submit a proper amended complaint. But the district cour t appropriately identified the factual deficiencies in the original complaint and provi ded Sutton with an opportunity to correct them. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110 (“[A] pr o se plaintiff requires no speci al legal training to3 recount the facts su rrounding his alleged injury, and he must p rovide such facts if the court is to determine whether he makes out a claim on which rel ief can be granted.”). We further conclude the distric t court did not err in dismissin g Sutton’s claims. Because Sutton failed to advance specific allegations that defendants personally participated in creati ng his conditions of confineme nt, the district court correctly held that his Eighth Am endment claim could not procee d. Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 ( 10th Cir. 2011). Altho ugh Sutton contends that he was placed in solitary confinement and hous ed with fellow inmates who assa ulted him, he fails to allege that defendants were involved in any housing decision s. As to his equal protection claim, Sutton merely a lleges that he was released fr om CMHIP and sent back to the general prison popul ation while other patients were not. But he has failed to show that these other patient s were similarly situated. See Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d 1152, 1172-73 (10t h Cir. 2011). Finally, despite having b een informed by the district court’s prior order th at a due process claim requires a constitutionally protected interest in life, liber ty, or property, Sutton simply noted that he was housed in solitary confinement after ha ving threatened to kill himself . Without more, the district court was correct in hol ding that Sutton did not plead facts sufficient to state a conditions of confinement clai m under DiMarco v. Wyoming Depa rtment of Corrections, 473 F.3d 133 4, 1342 (10th Cir. 2007).4 III For the foregoing reasons, the dis trict court’s order of dismis sal is
AFFIRMED . Sutton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED

.
Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge