Court Opinion

ID: 9915772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 16:01:05.236572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:31.400566
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1151     Document: 010110979708      Date Filed: 01/08/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        January 8, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  CARLEOUS DARRELL CLAY,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-1151
                                                (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-02657-LTB-KLM)
  DR. L. LARES; DR. RUDOLPH;                                  (D. Colo.)
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LT.
  GONZALES; COUNSELOR ROBISON;
  SIS TECH SONASTIEN; LT. WADE;
  LAZAK; CHILDRESS; ADAMS;
  WARDEN COLLOI; ANDRE
  MATEVOUSIAN; CARRIE BASAS; M.
  ED; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
  (INVESTIGATION UNIT); CENTRAL
  OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
  COORDINATOR; OFFICERS
  INSPECTOR GENERAL; DENISE; PREA
  RESPONDER AND COORDINATOR;
  DR. OBA; E. JACKSON,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-1151    Document: 010110979708        Date Filed: 01/08/2024      Page: 2

       Carleous Darrell Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal without

 prejudice of his amended complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

 we dismiss his appeal as frivolous and assess one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

 We deny all of Clay’s pending motions.

 I.    Background

       Clay is a federal prisoner housed at the ADMAX United States Penitentiary in

 Florence, Colorado. He filed a 26-page complaint asserting claims against

 Dr. L. Lares, his prison psychologist. A magistrate judge screened Clay’s complaint

 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) and found it to be

 defective. In particular, Clay’s complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a complaint to “contain . . . a short and plain

 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Further, “[e]ach

 allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Rule 8(d)(1). The magistrate judge

 also advised Clay that his complaint must make clear each defendant’s personal

 participation in any alleged constitutional violation by alleging who did what to

 whom. The magistrate judge ordered him to file an amended complaint.

       Clay responded to the magistrate judge’s order by filing a 37-page complaint

 naming over 20 new defendants in addition to Dr. Lares. Screening this amended

 complaint, the magistrate judge concluded that all of Clay’s claims stem from

 allegations that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had implanted an electronic device

 inside Clay’s body to torture and sexually assault him. According to Clay, this

 device was originally controlled by BOP officials but is now controlled by other

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1151     Document: 010110979708         Date Filed: 01/08/2024   Page: 3

 inmates, who continue to use it to torture and sexually assault him. The magistrate

 judge recommended dismissal of Clay’s amended complaint without prejudice

 because (1) it failed to comply with Rule 8’s short-and-plain-statement requirement;

 (2) it failed to allege personal participation by each defendant; (3) it was premised on

 wholly incredible factual allegations; and (4) some of the claims were barred by

 sovereign immunity.

        Clay filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Recommendation. The district

 court held that he did not “point to a specific factual or legal error in the

 Recommendation.” R. at 163. Instead, Clay improperly “attempt[ed] to add

 allegations and attach documents not set forth in the operative pleading.” Id. at 162.

 The court held that “it is well established that Plaintiff may not amend his complaint

 by adding factual allegations, documents, or legal theories through objections to the

 Recommendation.” Id. It overruled Clay’s objections, adopted the

 Recommendation, and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

 II.    Discussion

        We review de novo the sua sponte dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint under

 § 1915(e)(2). See Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009).

 “Rule 8(a) dismissals are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” U.S. ex rel. Lemmon

 v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010). Because Clay

 proceeds pro se, we liberally construe his filings, but we do not act as his advocate.

 See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-1151    Document: 010110979708          Date Filed: 01/08/2024       Page: 4

       Clay’s appeal brief fails to point to a factual or legal error in the district

 court’s judgment. He does not address the court’s holding that his amended

 complaint did not comply with Rule 8’s short-and-plain-statement requirement. He

 also fails to point to allegations in his amended complaint that show how each

 defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional and legal violations.

 Clay does not challenge on appeal the district court’s finding that the factual

 allegations in his amended complaint were wholly incredible. Nor does he

 demonstrate that his amended complaint alleged facts sufficient to show a waiver of

 sovereign immunity as to some of his claims. Thus, his appeal fails to address any of

 the district court’s bases for dismissal. We dismiss Clay’s appeal as frivolous.

       Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner shall not

       bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding
       under [§ 1915] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
       incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
       court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
       frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
       granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical
       injury.
 Prisoners obtain a “strike” under § 1915(g) when an action or appeal in federal court

 was dismissed on one of the grounds listed in that section. See Strope v. Cummings,

 653 F.3d 1271, 1273 (10th Cir. 2011). We assess a strike against Clay under

 § 1915(g) based upon his filing of a frivolous appeal. See Thompson v. Gibson,

 289 F.3d 1218, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2002) (assessing a strike for the dismissal of a

 frivolous appeal). We remind Clay that if he accrues three strikes, he will no longer

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1151    Document: 010110979708         Date Filed: 01/08/2024    Page: 5

 be able to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp) in any civil action filed in a federal court

 unless he is in imminent danger of physical injury. See § 1915(g).

 III.   Conclusion

        We dismiss Clay’s appeal as frivolous and assess a strike under § 1915(g). We

 deny his motion to proceed ifp and order him to immediately pay the fees and costs

 for this appeal in their entirety. We deny Clay’s second motion to appoint counsel

 and his motion to further amend his complaint.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Nancy L. Moritz
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             5