Adams v. Skoutary

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-1406
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1406 Document: 11 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 21, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court LATOYA L. ADAMS; Y.G., a minor,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. No. 24-1406 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02363-LTB) KIM SKOUTARY; MERIDIAN (D. Colo.) PSYCHOLOGIST, LLC; RENEE HANSON; CHIEF BRIAN; DECTECTIVE VENEGAS; OFFICER HOOD; OFFICER YOUNG,

Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

LATOYA L. ADAMS; Y.G., minor,

v. No. 24-1407 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-02362-LTB) ALYSSA BAMONTI; BONDI BEACH (D. Colo.) RESTAURANT; CORPORAL MATSUI; OFFICER MAHER,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1406 Document: 11 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 2

_________________________________

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

Latoya Adams, appearing pro se, appeals two virtually identical orders

dismissing two separate complaints she filed in the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado. In each case the district court denied her application to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because her application and

accompanying affidavit showed that she had sufficient financial resources to pay the

requisite filing fee and administrative fee. Each order gave her 30 days to pay the

filing fee and warned her that the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice if

she failed to pay. When Ms. Adams failed to pay, the court dismissed each action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

On appeal Ms. Adams’s briefs discuss the merits of her claims in district court

but raise no challenge to the denials of her applications to proceed IFP. She therefore

has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissals without prejudice, and we

must affirm those dismissals. See Rivero v. Bd. of Regents of the 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.”); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &

Janner, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Although a pro se litigant’s pleadings

are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers, this court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties

2 Appellate Case: 24-1406 Document: 11 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 3

follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” (brackets, citation,

and internal quotations marks omitted)).

Ms. Adams has also filed pleadings in this court requesting writs of

mandamus. There are multiple possible reasons for rejecting the pleadings, but we

mention only one—namely, that she has not shown that she could not have obtained

relief through a regular appeal. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,

380–381 (2004) (“[T]he party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other

adequate means to attain the relief he desires—a condition designed to ensure that the

writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process.” (brackets,

citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). We note that these pleadings assert

that she is indigent. But even if we incorporated the mandamus pleadings into her

appellate briefs, we still could not reverse the district-court rulings because the

pleadings do not reference any sworn pleading to support the assertion or explain

how the district court erred in evaluating her applications to proceed IFP.

We AFFIRM the dismissals by the district court, DENY the motions to

proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS the requests for writs of mandamus. We

remind Ms. Adams that she must pay the filing fees required for these appeals.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge