Court Opinion

ID: 9941066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 20:01:26.763978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:11.513778
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224      Date Filed: 02/15/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       February 15, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  JEREMIAH CASPER,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                        No. 23-1229
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00508-LTB)
  JOE DISALVO; KIM VALLARIO; BRAD                             (D. Colo.)
  GIBSON; LEVI BORST; SARA ROUSH;
  JAIRO GARCIA; ZANE CISNEROS;
  MARTIN GONZALEZ,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Jeremiah Casper, a Colorado state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a lengthy,

 handwritten civil rights complaint asserting approximately twenty-four claims against

 various individuals employed by the Pitkin County (Colorado) Sheriff’s Office. The

 magistrate judge ordered Casper to refile his complaint using a court-approved

 prisoner complaint form. Casper responded by filing an amended complaint on a

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224       Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 2

 court-approved prisoner complaint form. Notably, however, Casper failed to

 substantially complete the form. Both the magistrate judge and the district court

 directed Casper to utilize and complete a court-approved prisoner complaint form and

 to attach additional pages as needed to complete the sections of the approved form.

 Casper filed a second amended complaint. Although the first portion of the second

 amended complaint included a court-approved prisoner complaint form, Casper again

 failed to substantially complete the form and instead attached to the form a

 handwritten complaint that was similar to his original complaint. The district court

 responded by dismissing the case without prejudice due to Casper’s failure to comply

 with the court’s orders.

       Casper now appeals. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we

 affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Casper’s motion for leave to

 proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

                                             I

       On February 24, 2023, Casper initiated these federal proceedings by filing

 three pro se pleadings: a seventy-page civil rights complaint, a motion to proceed in

 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a motion for appointment of

 counsel. All three pleadings were handwritten by Casper on blank sheets of paper.

       The cover sheet of the complaint stated: “Civil Rights Complaint Filed under

 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and “Pattern of Constitutional Deprivation(s) Suffered from

 Pitkin, Colorado Sheriff’s Department.” ROA at 5. The complaint alleged, in

 relevant part, that Casper was incarcerated at a Colorado state correctional facility in

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1229    Document: 010111001224       Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 3

 Sterling, Colorado, but had previously been confined at the Pitkin County (Colorado)

 Jail. The complaint named as defendants “Sheriff Joe DiSalvo,” “Commander Kim

 Vallario,” two “[a]rresting sheriff deputies: Brad Gibson” and “Levi Borst,” and four

 “[j]ail based deputies: Sara Roush, Jairo Garcia, Zane Cisneros, [and] Martin

 Gonzalez.” Id. at 7. The body of the complaint alleged twenty-four separate civil

 rights claims against the named defendants and purported to outline “supporting case

 law” for each of the claims. Id. at 31.

       On February 28, 2023, the magistrate judge assigned to the case issued an

 order directing Casper to cure certain deficiencies in his § 1915 motion and in his

 complaint. The order noted that Casper’s § 1915 motion was not on a court-approved

 form and was missing a “certified copy of [Casper’s] trust fund statement for the

 6-month period immediately preceding th[e] filing” and “authorization to calculation

 and disburse filing fee payments.” ECF No. 5 at 2. The order in turn noted that

 Casper’s complaint was “not on [a] proper form” and that Casper was required to

 “use [the] current court-approved Prisoner Complaint form.” Id. The order directed

 Casper to “cure” the identified deficiencies “within 30 days.” Id. at 3.

       On March 9, 2023, Casper filed an amended complaint on a six-page,

 court-approved prisoner complaint form. On the first page of the form, which

 included spaces for identifying the “Plaintiff” and the “Defendant(s),” Casper

 handwrote his name and the names of the defendants. ROA at 81. On the second and

 third pages of the form, which asked him to provide detailed information about each

 defendant, Casper handwrote a single sentence: “See attached complaint for all (8)

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-1229    Document: 010111001224        Date Filed: 02/15/2024       Page: 4

 defendants.” Id. at 82. Similarly, on the fourth page of the form, which asked him to

 “[s]tate clearly and concisely every claim that you are asserting in this action,”

 Casper handwrote the following: “See attached complaint for numerous claim(s),

 defendant participation, damages, & supporting case law.” Id. at 84. And on the

 sixth page of the form, which asked him to “[s]tate the relief you are requesting or

 what you want the court to do,” Casper handwrote the following: “See complaint

 damages & participation for all claim(s) suffered.” Id. at 86. Notwithstanding

 Casper’s repeated references to an “attached complaint,” however, there were no

 documents attached to or otherwise submitted with the prisoner complaint form.

       Along with the amended complaint, Casper also filed on March 9, 2023, a new

 motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915 and statements in support of

 that motion.

       On April 7, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a second order directing Casper

 to cure deficiencies in his new § 1915 motion and his amended complaint. The order

 noted that Casper’s new § 1915 motion was “missing [a] certified copy of [Casper’s]

 trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately preceding th[e] filing.” Id.

 at 98. As for Casper’s amended complaint, the order noted:

       Plaintiff must submit a complete prisoner complaint on the
       court-approved form. The Court will not piece together separate filings
       and/or supplements. Instead, a complete prisoner complaint, along with
       all of the pages, claims, factual allegations, request for relief, and
       information must be submitted in one complete document on the
       court-approved form.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224         Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 5

 Id. at 99. The order directed Casper to cure these deficiencies within thirty days of

 the date of the order. The order also advised Casper that if he failed to cure the

 deficiencies within thirty days of the date of the order, “the action w[ould] be

 dismissed without further notice.” Id. at 100.

        On April 24, 2023, Casper filed a handwritten motion titled “Combined motion

 to set aside/modify magistrate 4/7/23 ‘Second order directing plaintiff to cure

 deficiencies,’ per CRCP 60(b)(5) due to unconstitutional directives; and petition to

 exceed page limitations for complaint introduction.” Id. at 101. The motion asked

 “the court to modify its most current order with respect to the overly restrictive space

 limitations of the ‘court approved complaint form.’” Id. Casper asserted in support

 that “the ‘court approved’ form d[id] not have adequate space to introduce [his]

 singular complaint composed of 26 seperate [sic] claim(s)” and that “[a]dditional

 space . . . [wa]s needed.” Id. at 102. Casper also argued that “the legal strategy of

 the extensive initial filing of the case [wa]s deliberate to the extent the effort ‘m[ight]

 serve’ to support ‘potential’ settlement avenues.” Id. at 103. Ultimately, Casper

 argued that requiring him to use a court-approved complaint form was “both

 unreasonable and unconstitutional.” Id. at 107. Casper therefore asked the district

 court to “accept [his] complaint and all supporting documents” that had previously

 been filed. Id. at 110.

        On May 17, 2023, the district court issued an order denying Casper’s

 combined motion “as to the request that he not be required to use the court-approved

 Prisoner complaint form,” but “grant[ing] in part as to his request to exceed page

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224          Date Filed: 02/15/2024      Page: 6

 limitations.” Id. at 116. The district court explained that “[a]s to the requirement

 that [Casper] submit his Prisoner Complaint on the court-approved form, a pro se

 party must follow the same procedural rules that govern other litigants.” Id. The

 district court in turn noted that its local rules “require[d] pro se litigants, both

 prisoners and nonprisoners, to use the Court-approved forms found on the Court’s

 website.” Id. The district court also noted that the “Tenth Circuit ha[d] repeatedly

 upheld the requirement that pro se litigants comply with local rules requiring use of

 proper court-approved forms, and ha[d] rejected constitutional challenges to such

 rules.” Id. at 116–17 (citing several unpublished Tenth Circuit cases). As for

 Casper’s “request to exceed page limitations,” the district court granted that request

 “in part” and ordered that Casper’s “Amended Prisoner Complaint may be up to 45

 (forty-five) pages.” Id. at 117. The district court advised Casper, however, “that he

 must use the court-approved prisoner complaint form and not include additional

 sections that [we]re not part of the court-approved form.” Id. at 117–18. The district

 court noted, for example, that “[h]is pleading d[id] not need to have an ‘introduction’

 section or a ‘caselaw’ section.” Id. at 118. The district court afforded Casper thirty

 days to file an amended complaint that complied with the court’s directives and noted

 that if he “fail[ed] to cure the deficiencies as directed within the time allowed, the

 action w[ould] be dismissed without further notice.” Id. at 119.

        On May 24, 2023, Casper filed a second amended complaint. The first six

 pages of the second amended complaint included a court-approved prisoner

 complaint form. But the form was, for the most part, incomplete. Casper listed

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-1229    Document: 010111001224         Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 7

 himself as the plaintiff and provided his address. But he did not list any of the

 defendants and instead referred to attachments that he submitted with the form.

 Similarly, in the “STATEMENT OF CLAIM(S)” and “REQUEST FOR RELIEF”

 sections of the form, Casper referred to an attachment he submitted with the form.

 Id. at 129, 131. Notably, that attachment was a handwritten complaint detailing his

 claims against the named defendants.

       On June 28, 2023, the district court issued an order of dismissal. The district

 court concluded in the order that Casper “ha[d] failed to follow Court Orders and

 failed to cure the deficiencies as directed by the Court.” Id. at 153. In particular, the

 district court concluded that Casper “attempted to circumvent the requirement of

 using the court-approved form by simply saying ‘see attached’ and then attaching his

 own documents, which [we]re a separate format from the court-approved form and

 include[d] ‘indexes’ of claims.” Id. The district court noted that it had “specifically

 informed [Casper] that it would not piece together separate filings and/or

 supplements,” and had “also previously warned [him] that ‘dismissal [wa]s an

 appropriate disposition against a party who disregard[ed] court orders and fail[ed] to

 proceed as required by court rules.’” Id. (quoting ECF No. 13 at 6). The district

 court therefore ordered the action “dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure the

 deficiencies and failure to follow court orders.” Id. at 154. The district court also

 “certifie[d] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from [its] order would

 not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status w[ould] be denied

 for the purpose of appeal.” Id.

                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-1229      Document: 010111001224         Date Filed: 02/15/2024      Page: 8

        Final judgment was entered on June 28, 2023. Casper thereafter filed a timely

 notice of appeal. Casper has since filed with this court a motion for leave to proceed

 in forma pauperis on appeal.

                                               II

        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes a district court to dismiss an

 action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

 41(b); see Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630–32 (1962) (holding that a

 district court has inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 41(b)).

 We review such a dismissal for an abuse of discretion. See Nasious v. Two Unknown

 B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). If the dismissal is with

 prejudice, a district court “must first consider certain criteria.” Id. at 1162. But

 where, as here, the dismissal was without prejudice, the “district court may, without

 abusing its discretion, enter such an order without attention to any particular

 procedures.” Id.

        After reviewing the record on appeal in this case, we conclude that the district

 court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Casper’s second amended complaint

 without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). When the district court denied Casper’s

 combined motion to set aside/modify the magistrate judge’s April 27, 2023 order

 directing him to cure deficiencies in his first amended complaint, the district court

 specifically advised Casper that the district court’s local rules “require[d] pro se

 litigants . . . to use the Court-approved forms found on the [district] [c]ourt’s

 website.” ROA at 116 (citing D.C. Colo. L. Civ. R. 5.1(c)). The local rule cited by

                                               8
Appellate Case: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224         Date Filed: 02/15/2024      Page: 9

 the district court, titled “Formatting and Filing of Pleadings and Documents and

 Maintenance of Contact Information by an Unrepresented Prisoner or Party,” states,

 in relevant part, that “an unrepresented prisoner or party shall use the procedures,

 forms, and instructions posted on the court’s website” and that “[i]f the unrepresented

 party is a prisoner and is unable to access the website, on request the clerk shall

 provide copies of necessary procedures, forms, and instructions.” D.C. Colo. L. Civ.

 R. 5.1(c). Casper does not dispute the existence of this rule or its applicability to his

 situation. Nor does he offer any reasoned argument that would persuade us that the

 rule should not be applied in his case. Although Casper argues in favor of the format

 he selected for his original and two amended complaints, our review of those

 pleadings persuades us that the presumed underlying purpose of the local rule, to

 require the use of court-approved forms in order to help organize and streamline pro

 se pleadings and, in turn, to facilitate the district court’s efficient review of those

 pleadings, is certainly applicable here. Because Casper refused to comply with the

 local rule and file an amended complaint that properly utilized the court-approved

 form, the district court acted well within its discretion in dismissing the action

 without prejudice.

        Lastly, we reject Casper’s argument that requiring him to use the court-

 approved prisoner complaint form violates his constitutional rights by limiting the

 amount of space he has to detail his allegations against the named defendants. As the

 district court effectively noted in its orders, and as the court-approved prisoner

 complaint form itself notes, a prisoner such as Casper may, after completing each

                                              9
Appellate Case: 23-1229     Document: 010111001224        Date Filed: 02/15/2024     Page: 10

  section of the court-approved prisoner complaint form, attach additional pages if they

  believe those pages are necessary to provide more detailed responses to any of the

  questions posed in the form. Thus, requiring Casper to use the court-approved

  prisoner complaint form does not in any way hamper his ability to pursue his claims

  against the named defendants. See Young v. United States, 316 F. App’x 764, 771

  (10th Cir. 2009) (rejecting pro se litigant’s “constitutional and other challenges to the

  District of Colorado’s local rule requiring use of the form by all prisoner litigants”).

                                             III

        The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Casper’s motion to proceed

  in forma pauperis on appeal and his request for record on appeal are DENIED.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Mary Beck Briscoe
                                              Circuit Judge

                                             10