Court Opinion

ID: 9368311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 18:00:48.285252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:06.988270
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1120     Document: 010110807929        Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           February 3, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  THEODORE DEAN ACOSTA,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 22-1120
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-03406-LTB-GPG)
  GLEN WILSON; RICK CLANDSENN;*                                 (D. Colo.)
  JOHN DOE; TAMMY ERET,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT**
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Theodore Dean Acosta, a pro se prisoner, appeals from a district-court order

 dismissing his amended complaint. He seeks leave to proceed on appeal in forma

 pauperis (IFP). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district

 court’s judgment and deny IFP status.

       *
         Although Plaintiff-Appellant designated “Rick Clandsenn” in the complaint
 as a defendant, the correct spelling of his name is “Riecke Claussen.”
       **
          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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 22-1120      Document: 010110807929         Date Filed: 02/03/2023      Page: 2

        Mr. Acosta’s amended complaint, the operative complaint in this case, brought

 several claims arising out of his arrest and prosecution some 20 years or more ago. As set

 forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Mr. Acosta has pursued

 repeated litigation over the years making identical or similar claims. The present claims

 are likely barred by the statute of limitations or under principles of res judicata. But we

 need not resolve those issues. One of the grounds for the district court’s judgment was

 that the claims are barred as repetitious litigation, see McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d

 573, 574 (10th Cir 1997) (“Repetitious litigation of virtually identical causes of action

 may be dismissed under [28 U.S.C.] § 1915 as frivolous or malicious.” (original brackets

 and internal quotation marks omitted)), and Mr. Acosta has not challenged that ruling on

 appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment below. See Rivero v. Bd. Of Regents of Univ. of

 N.M., 950 F.3d 754, 763 (10th Cir. 2020) (“If the district court states multiple alternative

 grounds for its ruling and the appellant does not challenge all those grounds in the

 opening brief, then we may affirm the ruling.”).

        We deny Mr. Acosta’s motion to proceed IFP, as he has not provided “a reasoned,

 nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal,”

 DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), and we direct him to pay

 any remaining unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee. Finally, we deny Mr. Acosta’s

 outstanding motions.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Harris L Hartz
                                                Circuit Judge

                                               2