Court Opinion

ID: 9965911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:00:55.940796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:51.245303
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6200     Document: 010111042829      Date Filed: 05/03/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          May 3, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  PHILLIP LEE KELLEY,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 23-6200
                                                     (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-00747-R)
  KEVIN STITT; LARRY MORRIS;                                (W.D. Okla.)
  ADAM LUCK; SCOTT WILLIAMS;
  ALLEN MCCALL,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Phillip Lee Kelley, an Oklahoma inmate appearing pro se,1 appeals the

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against various prison officials. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. Kelley 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: 23-6200    Document: 010111042829        Date Filed: 05/03/2024     Page: 2

       Mr. Kelley’s § 1983 complaint presented two claims: (1) that the governor of

 Oklahoma violated his constitutional rights by not signing legislation that would have

 brought about sentencing reform in the state and (2) that the lack of uniform criteria

 or specific rules governing Oklahoma’s pardon and parole proceedings denied him

 due process of law. He sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), under

 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He originally sought to join as plaintiffs thirty other prisoners, but

 only he signed the complaint. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of all

 other plaintiffs. Mr. Kelley then amended his complaint. The magistrate judge then

 recommended dismissal of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

 Mr. Kelley timely filed objections to the recommendation. The district court

 overruled the objections, adopted the recommendation, and dismissed the action

 without prejudice. This appeal followed.

       “We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss an IFP complaint

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.” Kay v. Bemis,

 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). In so doing, “[w]e apply the same standard of

 review . . . that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to

 dismiss . . . .” Id. “Under this standard, we must accept all the well-pleaded

 allegations of the complaint as true and must construe them in the light most

 favorable to the plaintiff.” Waller v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 932 F.3d 1277, 1282

 (10th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Mr. Kelley’s arguments on appeal do not engage with the reasoning in the

 district court’s order or in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. He

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-6200    Document: 010111042829         Date Filed: 05/03/2024    Page: 3

 reiterates the logic underlying his claims, but he in no way addresses the core reason

 for the dismissal: he “cannot use a § 1983 action to challenge the fact or duration of

 his confinement. He must seek federal habeas corpus relief (or appropriate state

 relief) instead.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (internal citations and

 quotation marks omitted).

       So, for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

 judge’s report and recommendation, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous under

 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1180

 (10th Cir. 2008) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious.” (internal

 quotation marks omitted)). We deny Mr. Kelley’s motion to proceed IFP.

 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.”). We also deny his motion for summary disposition.

       This dismissal, in addition to the district court’s dismissal, operates as a strike

 under § 1915(g), so Mr. Kelley now has two strikes. See Jennings v. Natrona Cnty.

 Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999), overruled in part on other

 grounds, Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015).

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Bobby R. Baldock
                                             Circuit Judge

                                            3