Banks v. Hickenlooper

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 2, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TORREY V. BANKS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 16-1466
(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-01725-LTB)
GOV. JOHN HICKENLOOPER; (D. Colo.)
JOHN/JANE DOE, U.S. Probation Dept.;
KURT PIERPOINT, U.S. Probation
Officer; HAHN, U.S. Marshal;
JOHN/JANE DOE, Arapahoe County
Sheriffs Dept.; ED LONG, Arapahoe
County Sheriff; JOHN/JANE DOE,
Colorado Bureau of Investigations,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Torrey Banks appeals a district court order dismissing his claims. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining Banks’ brief and the 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is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
I
Banks sued the Colorado Governor and various other state and federal
officials, alleging they violated his rights under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-60-501, which
is the Colorado statute adopting the interstate agreement on detainers. The district
court identified several defects in Banks’ complaint, explained those deficiencies in
detail, and ordered him to file an amended complaint.
Banks’ amended complaint raised three claims: malicious prosecution,
obstruction of justice, and violation of due process. The district court concluded that
Banks’ first two claims were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and his
third claim failed to meet the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. It dismissed
Banks’ claims1 and entered judgment in favor of the defendants.
II
Even under the liberal standard we apply to pro se pleadings, Banks’ brief is
inadequate to preserve any issues for review. We construe his brief liberally and
hold it to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Garrett v.
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). And we ignore
technical defects if “we can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on
which [he] could prevail.” Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir.
2013) (quotation omitted). But we cannot serve as Banks’ attorney by “constructing
arguments and searching the record.” Garrett, 425 F.3d at 840.
1
It dismissed Banks’ first two claims with prejudice and his third claim
without prejudice.
2
Banks’ brief contains no real argument that the district court erred by
dismissing his claims. Instead, Banks merely reiterates the allegations in his
amended complaint. By failing to meaningfully contest the district court’s rulings,
Banks has waived any argument that it erred. See Harsco Corp. v. Renner, 475 F.3d
1179, 1190 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[A] party waives those arguments that its opening brief
inadequately addresses.”); Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841 (holding that pro se plaintiff’s
inadequate “briefs disentitle him to review by this court”).
III
AFFIRMED. Because Banks has not advanced “a reasoned, nonfrivolous
argument” that the district court erred, DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505
(10th Cir. 1991), we DENY his motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and
fees. Banks must immediately pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
3