Court Opinion

ID: 9929384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 16:03:44.433696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:07:02.027500
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1327     Document: 010110993982      Date Filed: 02/02/2024      Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 2, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  JEREMIAH CASPER,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 23-1327
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00944-LTB)
  LOU VALLARIA; JIM MEYER; JAMES                              (D. Colo.)
  BRASSFIELD; JAMES ROE; NICK
  NELSON; HAMMOND, Deputy;
  CASSELMAN, Deputy; BLACKWELL,
  Deputy; JONATHON GODES, Mayor,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

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

       Jeremiah Casper, a Colorado state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a lengthy

 civil rights complaint asserting approximately twenty-six claims against various

 individuals employed at or connected to the Garfield County Jail in Glenwood

 Springs, Colorado. Although the first few pages of the complaint included a

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-1327    Document: 010110993982         Date Filed: 02/02/2024    Page: 2

 court-approved prisoner complaint form, Casper did not complete most of the

 sections of the form. Instead, Casper attached to the form various exhibits as well as

 numerous pieces of loose-leaf paper that detailed, at length, his civil rights claims.

        Both the magistrate judge and the district court directed Casper to refile his

 complaint. More specifically, both the magistrate judge and the district court

 directed Casper to utilize and complete a court-approved prisoner complaint form and

 to attach additional pages as needed to complete the sections of the approved form.

 Casper refused to do so, arguing that he had chosen the format of his original

 complaint for strategic reasons. Casper asked the district court to serve the original

 complaint on the named defendants and to allow the case to proceed. The district

 court declined Casper’s request and dismissed the case without prejudice due to

 Casper’s failure to refile his complaint on a court-approved prisoner complaint form.

       Casper now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

 affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Casper’s motion for leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

                                                 I

       On April 14, 2023, Casper initiated these federal proceedings by filing a pro se

 prisoner complaint asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint

 alleged that Casper was a “[c]onvicted and sentenced state prisoner” who was

 confined at a correctional facility in Sterling, Colorado. ROA at 6. Although the

 first six pages of the complaint were on a court-issued form, that form was largely

 incomplete. For example, in the section of the form titled “STATEMENT OF

                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-1327    Document: 010110993982        Date Filed: 02/02/2024     Page: 3

 CLAIM(S),” Casper handwrote: “See attatched [sic] ‘Claims Suffered’ 1–26.” Id. at

 8. The remaining one-hundred-forty-nine pages of the complaint were a combination

 of blank pieces of paper containing Casper’s handwriting and copies of various

 supporting documents. The handwritten pages alleged that “[a]ll action(s) accrued

 within the Garfield County jail in Glenwood Spgs, Colorado, between Aug 2020–

 June 2021.” Id. at 13. The handwritten pages in turn listed as defendants the

 “Garfield sheriff’s department,” the ”Glenwood Spgs mayor encumbent [sic],” “[a]ll

 sheriff dept employees, acting under color of law,” the “Garfield sheriff encumbent

 [sic],” the “Garfield jail commander encumbent [sic],” three “[j]ail based deputies,”

 and three sheriff’s deputies. Id. The handwritten pages proceeded to detail

 twenty-six claims “alleg[ing] constitutional deprivations suffered ‘patternistically’

 [sic] within the Garfield county jail” while Casper was “in pre-sentence

 confinement.” Id. at 14. These included, for example, claims that the jail staff

 refused to wear masks to mitigate Covid-19 transmission, claims of excessive use of

 force by jail staff, and claims challenging various conditions of confinement. Along

 with his complaint, Casper also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant

 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a motion for appointment of counsel.

       On April 17, 2023, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued an order

 directing Casper to cure certain deficiencies in his § 1915 motion and in his

 complaint. The order noted that Casper’s § 1915 motion was not on a court-approved

 form and was also missing a “certified copy of [Casper’s] trust fund statement for the

 6-month period immediately preceding th[e] filing” and “authorization to calculation

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-1327      Document: 010110993982       Date Filed: 02/02/2024     Page: 4

 and disburse filing fee payments.” Id. at 379. As for Casper’s complaint, the order

 noted that it failed to provide “addresses . . . for all defendants/respondents.” Id.

 The order further stated:

       Plaintiff must submit a complete prisoner complaint on the
       court-approved form. Plaintiff cannot submit a court-approved prisoner
       complaint with minimal information and then state, “see attached,” and
       set forth claims and factual allegations in a separate format from the
       court-approved form. Instead, a complete prisoner complaint, with all
       of the pages, claims, factual allegations, request for relief, and
       information must be submitted in one complete document on the
       court-approved form.

 Id. The order directed Casper to cure the identified deficiencies within thirty days

 from the date of the order.

       On May 24, 2023, Casper filed a combined motion to modify the magistrate

 judge’s April 17, 2023 order and to exceed the page limitations for his complaint. In

 the motion, Casper argued that “the ‘court approved’ complaint form d[id] not have

 adequate space to introduce [his] singular complaint composed of 26 seperate [sic]

 claim(s) suffered from the same defendants, within the same relative time period over

 some 10+ months time.” Id. at 383. Casper further argued that the format of his

 complaint, which included an introduction, various indexes, and exhibits, was “by

 planned design” intended to provide him with “a strategic legal advantage.” Id. at

 385. Casper also argued that his complaint “offer[ed] extensive evidence [that] relief

 ‘c[ould] be’ granted and therefore should not be dismissed accordingly.” Id. at 386.

       On that same date, Casper also filed an amended complaint. The amended

 complaint, similar to the original complaint, was comprised of a six-page court-

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1327       Document: 010110993982       Date Filed: 02/02/2024   Page: 5

 approved “PRISONER COMPLAINT” form that was mostly incomplete and twelve

 handwritten pages attached to the form outlining Casper’s twenty-six claims for

 relief.

           On July 3, 2023, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Casper leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915.

           On July 19, 2023, the district court issued an order denying Casper’s “request

 that he not be required to use the court-approved Prisoner Complaint form.” Id. at

 419. The district court concluded in its order that the amended complaint that Casper

 “filed on May 24, 2023 d[id] not comply with the” magistrate judge’s “April 17,

 2023 Order because [Casper] simply state[d] ‘see attached’ on the sections of the

 court-approved form and then attache[d] his own document, which ha[d] different

 formatting and information compared to the court approved form.” Id. at 421. The

 district court “warned” Casper “that he must use the court-approved prisoner

 complaint form and not include additional sections that [we]re not part of the court-

 approved form.” Id. at 421. The district court granted Casper “permission to exceed

 the [normal] page limitation” on prisoner complaints, but noted that any amended

 complaint should “not exceed forty-five (45) pages.” Id. The district court advised

 Casper that he had thirty days from the date of the order “to comply with the [court’s]

 directives” and the magistrate judge’s April 17, 2023 order directing him to cure the

 deficiencies in his original complaint. Id. at 422. The district court also advised

 Casper that if he “fail[ed] to cure the deficiencies as directed within the time allowed,

 the action w[ould] be dismissed without further notice.” Id.

                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-1327     Document: 010110993982          Date Filed: 02/02/2024      Page: 6

        Casper did not file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

 the district court. Instead, on August 17, 2023, Casper filed a fifteen-page response

 to the district court’s July 19, 2023 order. Casper argued that “[t]he circumstances

 and chronology in events” in the case and in a prior case that Casper filed in the

 district court “clearly demonstrate[d] . . . a pattern of retaliation if not blatant judicial

 misconduct from” the district court “to deny [Casper’s] constitutionally protected

 access to the court as a public forum, and file [his] complaint so that it [could]

 proceed to judgment.” Id. at 435. Casper asked the district court to allow the

 amended complaint he filed on May 24, 2023, to “be served right away to the

 defendants to mitigate the arbitrary delays in justice.” Id. at 437.

        On September 20, 2023, the district court issued an order of dismissal. The

 order recounted the procedural history of the case and concluded as follows:

                Plaintiff has failed to follow Court Orders and failed to cure the
        deficiencies as directed by the Court. He has failed to include all of his
        claims, supporting factual allegations, and requests for relief on the
        court-approved prisoner complaint form. Even after his request to be
        excused from using the court-approved prisoner complaint form was
        denied, Plaintiff failed to follow the directives of the Court. Plaintiff
        acted in a similar pattern in a previous action in this Court. See Casper
        v. Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office, 23-cv-00508-LTB at ECF No. 17
        (June 28, 2023) (dismissed for failure to cure deficiencies and follow
        court orders). Plaintiff was previously warned that “dismissal is an
        appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court orders and
        fails to proceed as required by court rules.” ECF No. 15 at 5–6 (citing
        United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855
        (10th Cir. 2005)).

               Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies as directed, and he has
        failed to follow numerous court orders to use the court-approved
        prisoner complaint form and to include all of his claims, supporting
        factual allegations, and requests for relief on the court-approved form.

                                               6
Appellate Case: 23-1327      Document: 010110993982         Date Filed: 02/02/2024      Page: 7

        Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
        cure the deficiencies and failure to follow court orders.

 Id. at 442–443. The district court “certifie[d] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that

 any appeal from [its] order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma

 pauperis status w[ould] be denied for the purpose of appeal.” Id. at 443.

        Final judgment was entered on September 20, 2023. Casper thereafter filed a

 timely notice of appeal. Casper has since filed with this court a motion for leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

                                               II

        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an

 action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–32 (1962) (holding that a

 district court has inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 41(b)).

 We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion. See Nasious v. Two Unknown

 B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). If the dismissal is with

 prejudice, a district court “must first consider certain criteria.” Id. at 1162. But

 where, as here, the dismissal was without prejudice, the “district court may, without

 abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular

 procedures.” Id.

        After reviewing the record on appeal in this case, we conclude that the district

 court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte dismissing Casper’s complaint without

 prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). The district court advised Casper, well before

                                               7
Appellate Case: 23-1327      Document: 010110993982        Date Filed: 02/02/2024         Page: 8

 dismissing his complaint without prejudice, that the district court’s local rules

 “require[d] pro se litigants . . . to use the Court-approved forms found on the

 [district] [c]ourt’s website.” ROA at 420 (citing D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 5.1(c)). The

 local rule cited by the district court, titled “Formatting and Filing of Pleadings and

 Documents and Maintenance of Contact Information by an Unrepresented Prisoner or

 Party,” states, in relevant part, that “an unrepresented prisoner or party shall use the

 procedures, forms, and instructions posted on the court’s website” and that “[i]f the

 unrepresented party is a prisoner and is unable to access the website, on request the

 clerk shall provide copies of necessary procedures, forms, and instructions.” D.C.

 Colo. L. Civ. R. 5.1(c). Casper does not dispute the existence of this rule or its

 applicability to his situation. Nor does he offer any reasoned argument that would

 persuade us that the rule should not be applied in his case. Although Casper argues

 in favor of the format he selected for his original and amended complaints, our

 review of those pleadings persuades us that the presumed underlying purpose of the

 local rule, to require the use of court-approved forms in order to help organize and

 streamline pro se pleadings and, in turn, to facilitate the district court’s efficient

 review of those pleadings, is certainly applicable here. Because Casper refused to

 comply with the local rule and file an amended complaint utilizing the court-

 approved form, the district court acted well within its discretion in dismissing the

 action without prejudice.

                                              8
Appellate Case: 23-1327   Document: 010110993982       Date Filed: 02/02/2024   Page: 9

                                          III

       The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Casper’s motion to proceed

 in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Mary Beck Briscoe
                                           Circuit Judge

                                          9