Court Opinion

ID: 9941607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 17:00:55.01715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:48.150285
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1305     Document: 010111001836       Date Filed: 02/16/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         February 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  JUAN VIANEZ,

        Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1305
                                                     (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-02281-LTB)
  WARDEN AT FLORENCE, CO,                                       (D. Colo.)

        Respondent - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       On September 1, 2023, appellant Juan Vianez, a prisoner at the United States

 Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado, filed in the

 United States District Court for the District of Colorado a short but rambling

 handwritten pleading raising several vague complaints about his treatment. The

 district court characterized the pleading as an application for a writ of habeas corpus

 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

       Since August 2014 Mr. Vianez has been under filing restrictions imposed by

 the Colorado federal district court. See Vianez v. United States, No. 14-cv-01363-

       *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines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: 23-1305        Document: 010111001836        Date Filed: 02/16/2024   Page: 2

 LTB, ECF No. 7 (D. Colo. Aug. 12, 2014) (Filing Restrictions). The restrictions were

 imposed after the court found that he was either “incapable of complying with” the

 court’s orders or was “maliciously and purposely filing nonsensical pleadings in an

 attempt to abuse the federal judiciary system.” Id. at 4–5. The restrictions are set

 forth in the margin. 1

          1
              “[T]o obtain permission to proceed pro se, Plaintiff must take the following
 steps:

               1. File a motion titled, “Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking
                  Leave to File a Pro Se Action;”
               2. Attach to the motion a copy of the injunction that imposes these
                  recommended filing restrictions;
               3. Attach to the motion a completed court-approved prisoner
                  complaint or habeas form and either pay the [$402] filing fee
                  for a complaint or a $5 filing fee for a habeas, or in the
                  alternative submit a request to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
                  § 1915 on a form that is approved by this court and applicable
                  to the action being filed, and attach a certified inmate account
                  statement as required;
               4. Attach a list of all prisoner complaints and 28 U.S.C. § 2241
                  actions Mr. Vianez currently has pending or has filed in all
                  federal district courts; and
               5. Attach a notarized affidavit that certifies Mr. Vianez has not
                  presented the same claims in another federal district court, that
                  the claims are not frivolous or taken in bad faith, that the
                  lawsuit is not interposed for any improper purpose to harass or
                  cause unnecessary delay, and that the filing complies with this
                  injunction, the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, all other provisions of the
                  Federal Rules of Civil, and the Local Rules of Practice of the
                  United States District Court for the District of Colorado.”

          Filing Restrictions at 5–6.

                                                2
Appellate Case: 23-1305     Document: 010111001836         Date Filed: 02/16/2024     Page: 3

        Because Mr. Vianez did not comply with the filing restrictions when he filed

 his application under § 2241, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice.

 He has filed a timely notice of appeal.

        Mr. Vianez’s pro se brief in this court claims to raise two issues: denial of the

 right to bail and denial of a right to jury trial. The brief does not explain the basis of

 those claims nor connect them to the allegations in his original district-court

 pleading.

        More importantly, Mr. Vianez’s brief does not challenge the validity of the

 district court’s filing restrictions or contend that he conformed to them. These

 failures waive his right to appellate review of the dismissal. See Nixon v. City &

 Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (appellant must explain why

 district court’s decision was incorrect); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,

 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants must follow the same rules of

 procedure that govern all litigants and failure to adequately brief an issue constitutes

 waiver).

        Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the district

 court’s dismissal of Mr. Vianez’s § 2241 application and DENY his request to

 proceed in forma pauperis.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Harris L Hartz
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              3