Court Opinion

ID: 9926741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 17:00:47.112682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:59.868626
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3155     Document: 010110989919       Date Filed: 01/25/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 25, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  MOREHEI PIERCE,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-3155
                                                 (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-04059-EFM-ADM)
  KRIS KOBACH, TIM EASLEY; JEFF                                (D. Kan.)
  ZMUDA,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Morehei Pierce, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district

 court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

 § 1915(e)(2)(B). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

                                            I.

       Pierce filed a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States

 District Court for the District of Kansas on July 21, 2023. The complaint named as

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-3155    Document: 010110989919         Date Filed: 01/25/2024     Page: 2

 defendants Kris Kobach, in his capacity as Attorney General of Kansas; Tim Easley,

 in his capacity as Warden at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility; and Jeff

 Zmuda, in his capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Corrections. Pierce

 alleges that officers at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility ignored “repeated

 reports” that “inmates were making racial threats prior to [Pierce] being attacked and

 injured” on two occasions while Pierce was incarcerated at the facility. ROA at 6.

 Magistrate Judge Angel Mitchell granted Pierce leave to proceed in Kansas district

 court in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge then sua sponte reviewed Pierce’s

 complaint and recommended that the district court dismiss it.

       In her Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge explained that while

 Pierce’s complaint “names Kobach, Easley, and Zmuda as defendants, it does not set

 forth any facts about, or attribute any actions to, these individuals.” ROA at 27. The

 magistrate judge indicated that Pierce’s complaint was difficult to discern, but that he

 “appears to be asserting an Eighth Amendment claim for inhumane conditions of

 confinement, suggesting officers were deliberately indifferent to his safety.” Id. at

 28. Because supervisors of prison officials cannot be held vicariously liable for the

 actions of those they supervise, a plaintiff must plead that the official’s individual

 actions violated the Constitution. See Keith v. Koerner, 843 F.3d 833, 838 (10th Cir.

 2016) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009)). The magistrate judge

 found that Pierce had failed to state a claim because his complaint “lacks any factual

 contention that one or more of these defendants, acting under color of state law,

 caused Pierce to be deprived of his Eighth Amendment rights . . . as is necessary to

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-3155    Document: 010110989919        Date Filed: 01/25/2024    Page: 3

 support a § 1983 claim.” ROA at 28–29. Pierce objected to the Report and

 Recommendation on the basis that he had filed a grievance, which he believed

 rendered the defendants liable. The district court rejected Pierce’s objection, noting

 that Pierce “confuses knowledge of a grievance with allegations tying a defendant to

 the facts underlying a claim” and adopted the Report and Recommendation,

 dismissing Pierce’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

 granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Id. at 33. Pierce timely appealed.

                                            II.

       We review de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint

 in an in forma pauperis proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).1 Vasquez

 Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009). Sua sponte dismissals are

 generally disfavored, and dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) “is

 warranted only where it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the

 facts alleged,” and an opportunity for amendment would be futile. Whitney v. New

 Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotation marks

 omitted).

       Pierce’s brief fails to demonstrate how the district court erred in dismissing his

 complaint. Pierce simply states that “ignoring evidence isn’t complying with the

       1
         Although 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) refers to “prisoners,” this court has
 repeatedly concluded that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “applies to all in forma pauperis
 proceedings.” Getachew v. Google, Inc., 491 F. App’x 923, 925 (10th Cir. 2012); see
 also Ruston v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 304 F. App’x 666, 668
 (10th Cir. 2008).
                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-3155    Document: 010110989919        Date Filed: 01/25/2024     Page: 4

 constitution” and that “none of the evidence was considered in this case.” Aplt. Br.

 at 4. Though we are directed to construe a pro se party’s pleadings liberally, it is not

 the “proper function” of a court “to assume the role of advocate for the pro se

 litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A broad reading of

 Pierce’s complaint does not relieve him from the duty to make a recognized legal

 claim. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, the plaintiff in a deliberate

 indifference case “must show an ‘affirmative link’ between [the official] and the

 constitutional violation, which requires proof of three interrelated elements:

 (1) personal involvement; (2) causation; and (3) state of mind.” ROA at 28; see also

 Keith, 843 F.3d at 838 (quoting Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t,

 717 F.3d 760, 767 (10th Cir. 2013)). Pierce alleges no affirmative link at all. He

 simply infers that the defendants at one point saw his grievance report. The theory of

 vicarious liability does not apply to suits against government officials for the

 unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. In light

 of Pierce’s failure to allege any unconstitutional actions by the defendants, we agree

 with the district court that Pierce has failed to state a claim on which relief may be

 granted.

       “Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to

 amend need not be granted.” Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Lab'ys, 630 F.2d

 1383, 1389 (10th Cir. 1980) (citing DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.

 1969)). Pierce does not argue that he should be given an opportunity to amend, nor

 does his brief on appeal include any new information that indicates the deficiencies

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-3155    Document: 010110989919         Date Filed: 01/25/2024    Page: 5

 in his complaint are curable. The defendants in this action are all supervisors, thus

 Pierce’s claims against them necessarily rely on a disallowed theory of supervisory

 liability. Given this fundamental failure in Pierce’s claim, we agree with the district

 court that offering Pierce the opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile.

       Even if Pierce’s underlying complaint did allege an affirmative link between

 the defendants and the alleged constitutional violation, his briefing fails the basic

 requirements of appellate procedure. “This court has repeatedly insisted that pro se

 parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v.

 Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 requires, among other things, an appellant’s

 brief to include a “statement of the issues presented for review,” a “concise statement

 of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review,” and an

 argument that contains “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with

 citations to the authorities and parties of the record on which the appellant relies.”

 Fed. R. App. P. 28. “Under Rule 28, which applies equally to pro se litigants, a brief

 must contain . . . more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to

 supporting authority.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th

 Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)).

 Pierce vaguely accuses the defendants and the district court of ignoring evidence and

 somehow failing to consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His brief lacks any

 explanation as to how and where the district court erred, or what he even seeks on

 appeal. The inadequacies of his brief render review impossible.

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-3155   Document: 010110989919        Date Filed: 01/25/2024   Page: 6

       Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Pierce’s

 case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

                                          III.

       We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Allison H. Eid
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           6