Court Opinion

ID: 9945815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:00:50.57005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.654833
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 24-1001     Document: 010111006587       Date Filed: 02/28/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 28, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  ALFREDO P. GONZALEZ,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 24-1001
                                                  (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00665-LTB-SBP)
  JOE BIDEN, et al.; MAYORKAS, et al.,                         (D. Colo.)
  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
  SECURITY DHS; GOVERNOR J. POLIS,
  et al.; BILL BURNES, et al., CENTRAL
  INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CIA;
  ALCOHOL TOBACCO FIREARMS,
  ATF, et al., FEDERAL BUREAU OF
  INVESTIGATION, C. WRAY, et al.;
  DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
  DEA, et al.; NATIONAL SECURITY
  AGENCY, NSA, et al.; LLOYD AUSTIN,
  Defense Secretary, U.S. Army, et al.;
  WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
  SHERIFF STEVE REMES, et al.;
  OFFICER VESQUEZ, WCJ; OFFICER
  ESCALANTHA, WCJ; MOSES A.
  STANCIL, CDOC, et al.; JASON
  LENGERICH, BVCF Warden, et al.;
  STEPHANIE SANDOVAL, CSP Warden,
  et al.; CAPT. C. BOWERS, BVCF CAPT;
  LT. WHITE, CSP LT.; SGT. WILL, CSP
  LT.; DRDC, John Doe #1,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 24-1001     Document: 010111006587        Date Filed: 02/28/2024   Page: 2

                          _________________________________

 Before EID, KELLY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.**
                     _________________________________

          Plaintiff-Appellant Alfredo Gonzalez, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals

 from the district court’s judgment dismissing his second amended civil rights

 complaint (SAC) and his action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

 Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with pleading rules, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Our

 jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

 See Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir.

 2007).

          After reviewing the proceedings in the district court, we find no abuse of

 discretion. Mr. Gonzalez named numerous federal and state defendants involved in

 his confinement in several facilities. Mr. Gonzalez alleges that President Biden is

 behind Operation Kill KINGLUCIFER (an alias for Mr. Gonzalez). He claims that

 he is under investigation by the United States Army and Department of Homeland

 Security based on his ties to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. 1 R. 78–80. Mr.

 Gonzalez further alleges that he has been tortured — forced to listen to messages

 from a communication satellite and to take psychotropic drugs against his will so that

          **
          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.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 24-1001    Document: 010111006587        Date Filed: 02/28/2024      Page: 3

 he might provide intelligence information. Aplt. Br. at 2. In addition, he alleges that

 he has been physically assaulted based upon his non-compliance with various orders.

       On appeal, Mr. Gonzalez contends that he included a short and plain statement

 of the facts necessary to his complaint and that his SAC was not afforded liberal

 construction. But after reviewing the SAC, we find no error. Mr. Gonzalez was

 given two opportunities to amend his complaint given its various deficiencies. See

 Ord. Directing Plaintiff to File Amended Prisoner Complaint, Gonzalez v. Biden, No.

 1:23-CV-00665 (D. Colo. May 24, 2023), ECF No. 11; Ord. Directing Plaintiff to

 File Second Amended Prisoner Complaint, Gonzalez v. Biden, No. 1:23-CV-00665

 (D. Colo. Aug. 10, 2023), ECF No. 16. Even with liberal construction, a complaint

 must not only include a reasonable factual basis but also some basis to infer a

 violation of legal rights. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007)

 (reiterating that pro se parties follow the same procedural rules governing other

 litigants). Merely reciting allegations of harm paired with legal conclusions does not

 demonstrate a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

       We DENY leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees or costs and

 AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
                                            Circuit Judge

                                            3