Court Opinion

ID: 9366999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 16:10:54.573089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.583105
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-6047     Document: 010110805274      Date Filed: 01/30/2023   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       January 30, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  ALVIN PARKER,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 22-6047
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:21-CV-01168-D)
  SCOTT CROW, Director, Oklahoma                            (W.D. Okla.)
  Department of Corrections,

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Alvin Parker is a prisoner proceeding pro se1 in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

 against the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC). The district court,

 adopting the recommendation of a magistrate judge, dismissed his claim for failure to

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
       1
        Because Mr. Parker proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but
 we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing
 arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 22-6047     Document: 010110805274        Date Filed: 01/30/2023      Page: 2

 pay the filing fee, concluding he was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis

 (“IFP”) because he was subject to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)

 and failed to satisfy the imminent danger exception to that provision.2 Mr. Parker

 appeals, arguing the district court erred when it concluded he did not satisfy the

 imminent danger exception. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but we

 dismiss the appeal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

       In the underlying complaint he filed in December 2021, Mr. Parker alleged

 ODOC unconstitutionally deprived him of access to the courts by failing to timely

 pay his filing fee associated with a petition for certiorari in another case in July 2021.

 He alleged this interference caused anxiety and migraine headaches and induced a

 stroke in February 2021.

       Mr. Parker also moved to proceed IFP. The magistrate judge recommended

 denial of the IFP motion, concluding that the alleged stroke amounted to past harm,

 which was insufficient to satisfy the imminent danger exception, and that there was

 not a sufficient nexus between the alleged misconduct and Mr. Parker’s headaches.

 The magistrate also stated Mr. Parker failed to “explain how a favorable outcome . . .

       2
           Section § 1915(g) provides:

              In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
       judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section 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.

                                             2
Appellate Case: 22-6047    Document: 010110805274        Date Filed: 01/30/2023       Page: 3

 would resolve health problems induced by an inability to petition for certiorari in a

 prior case.” R. at 42.

       Mr. Parker objected to the magistrate’s recommendation. In his objection, he

 did not contest that he had already incurred three strikes, but he argued he satisfied

 the imminent danger exception because he “presented support for his assertions that

 [ODOC’s conduct] has and will cause strokes.” R. at 53 (internal quotation marks

 omitted). He did not raise the issue of his alleged migraine headaches in his

 objection.

       The district court overruled the objection,

       writ[ing] separately only to emphasize that, accepting the alleged fact that
       [Mr. Parker] had a stroke in February 2021, it occurred before he attempted
       to make the Supreme Court filing that is the subject of his current
       Complaint, and it occurred long after an attempted Supreme Court filing in
       2019 that was the subject of his prior civil rights case.
 R. at 60. The court further concluded Mr. Parker did “not allege that [ODOC] was

 engaged in any misconduct in December 2021 that would place [him] under

 imminent danger of another stroke or any other serious physical injury.” Id. The

 court therefore ordered Mr. Parker to pay the full filing fee within 30 days and stated

 it would dismiss the action without prejudice if he failed to do so. Mr. Parker moved

 for reconsideration, again focusing on his prior stroke and the possibility of another

 in the future, and again making no argument related to his alleged migraine

 headaches. The district court denied this motion.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 22-6047      Document: 010110805274           Date Filed: 01/30/2023        Page: 4

        Mr. Parker then filed an amended complaint along with a motion for leave to

 amend.3 After the expiration of the 30-day deadline from its prior order, the court

 dismissed the action because Mr. Parker still had not paid the filing fee. Liberally

 construing Mr. Parker’s pleadings, the court also considered the allegations in the

 amended complaint, but it concluded they too failed to satisfy the imminent danger

 exception.

        Mr. Parker presents one argument on appeal: that the district court erred in

 denying his IFP motion because he satisfied the imminent danger exception through

 his allegations of ongoing anxiety and migraine headaches. This court follows the

 firm waiver rule, under which “the failure to make timely objection to the

 magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual

 and legal questions.” Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

 Mr. Parker did not raise the argument on which he now relies in his objections to the

 magistrate judge’s recommendation, so he has waived appellate review of the

 antecedent factual and legal questions. And because Mr. Parker clearly failed to

 preserve his only appellate argument, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous.

 See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

 determines that . . . the . . . appeal . . . is frivolous . . . .”); Braley v. Campbell,

 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is

        3
         Because Mr. Parker had not yet served his complaint, he did not need to seek
 leave to amend it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).

                                                4
Appellate Case: 22-6047    Document: 010110805274       Date Filed: 01/30/2023    Page: 5

 obvious, or the appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal

 quotation marks omitted)). This dismissal serves as a strike under § 1915(g). We

 also deny Mr. Parker’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal. See DeBardeleben v.

 Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In order to succeed on [an IFP]

 motion, an appellant must show . . . the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous

 argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.”).

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Bobby R. Baldock
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            5