Johnson v. Gonzales
This text of Johnson v. Gonzales (Johnson v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellate Case: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WALTER JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 25-1321 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-00987-LTB-RTG) SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE (D. Colo.) LT. GONZALES; PSYCHOLOGY MEGAN STEVENS,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________
Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Walter Johnson is a federal prisoner at the administrative maximum security
(ADMAX) prison in Florence, Colorado. Proceeding pro se, he sued defendants in
their individual capacities, requesting money damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2
The district court allowed Mr. Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a magistrate judge reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B). The magistrate judge concluded the complaint did
not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and ordered Mr. Johnson to file an
amended complaint. He did so. Yet the factual allegations in his amended complaint
were essentially the same as those asserted in his first complaint. They state, in their
entirety:
SiS [presumably, Special Investigation Service] Lt. [G]onzalez and psychology, Stevens contributed to deprive me the credit to reduce my time in maximum confinement. When this happen[ed]: January 6, 2020 medical J. Seroksi, PA-C let SiS Lt. [G]onzalez and Psychology, Stevens know I was on some medication for urinary straining but still SiS Lt. [G]onzalez sent the U.A. test I can’t take to make sure I get a incident report to not get the credit to reduce my time, in Florence A.D.X. maximum confinement. [H]ow it harmed me: Abuse of Authority trying to intimidate me what medical say don’t mean nothing all because I won’t be a informant for SiS but SiS Lt. [G]onzalez tell me just help him out he will take me off the piss test indefinitely. What rights got violated: Eighth Amendment I’m challenging condition[s] of confinement. R. at 60.
The magistrate judge concluded the amended complaint did not comply with
Rule 8 because its allegations were “vague and difficult to understand,” and “failed to
explain, in a clear and understandable way, what exactly each named Defendant did
to violate [Mr. Johnson’s] rights.” R. at 71, 72. The magistrate judge therefore
recommended Mr. Johnson’s action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal
2 Appellate Case: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 3
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The district court adopted that recommendation,
overruling Mr. Johnson’s objections. Mr. Johnson timely appealed.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review dismissal under
Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents,
492 F.3d 1158, 1161 (10th Cir. 2007). “The abuse-of-discretion standard is
deferential, and we will not disturb the trial court’s decision unless we have a definite
and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded
the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Chieftain Royalty Co. v.
EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., 166 F.4th 34, 40 (10th Cir. 2026)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We liberally construe Mr. Johnson’s pro se filings. See Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we will not act as
his advocate or make arguments for him. See id. And he must follow the same rules
of procedure as other litigants. See id.
Mr. Johnson has not shown the district court abused its discretion. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to provide “a short and plain
statement of [each] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(d)(1)
adds “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” “Rule 8 serves the
important purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their claims intelligibly so as to
inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted.” Mann v. Boatright, 477
F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007). A complaint therefore must give “enough factual
detail to provide fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
3 Appellate Case: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 4
Jacobs v. Salt Lake City Sch. Dist., 154 F.4th 790, 804 (10th Cir. 2025) (ellipsis and
internal quotation marks omitted). “[F]ailure to satisfy Rule 8 can supply a basis for
dismissal” under Rule 41(b). Nasious, 492 F.3d at 1161. Because the district court
allowed Mr. Johnson to amend his complaint and dismissed his claims without
prejudice, no particular procedure was required. See id.
Mr. Johnson maintains his amended complaint adequately complied with Rule
8 because he said what each defendant did, when they did it, how he was harmed, and
what rights were violated. But he does not explain how his allegations were
sufficiently “direct” to comply with Rule 8(d)(1) or offer a “plain statement” showing
he is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8(a)(2). He states he was allowed to
proceed in a different case where his complaint “used the same format and
arrangements.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. But he does not identify the other case or
explain how the ruling there would show the district court abused its discretion here.
See generally Owens v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte Cnty. & Kansas City, 100 F.4th
1177, 1182 n.2 (10th Cir. 2024) (stating that “another district court’s discretionary
decision . . . cannot establish that [this] district court necessarily abused its discretion
by reaching the opposite conclusion”) (reviewing decision to grant a mistrial).
Reviewing the district court’s ruling deferentially for abuse of discretion, we
cannot say it made a “clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Johnson v. Gonzales, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-gonzales-ca10-2026.