DEL CAMPO v. COMMUNITY OF HOPE (2021)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Ramon M. Del Campo appeals the dismissal of two cases. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.¹

In each case, Mr. Del Campo filed a form civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rather than allege facts to establish a § 1983 claim, each complaint asked the reader to “[p]lease view” information from a different case that he had filed.² In each case, the district court notified Mr. Del Campo that it would not “comb the record of this or other cases,” and it granted him leave to file an amended complaint.³ In response, Mr. Del Campo filed various motions, but he did not file an amended complaint. The district court then dismissed each case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim. Mr. Del Campo appealed both dismissals.

The briefs Mr. Del Campo has filed in each appeal do not explain why he failed to file amended complaints or why his original complaints stated a claim. We therefore affirm the district court judgment in each case. In 20-2114, we deny Mr. Del Campo's motion to expand the record. In 20-2136, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, so his filing fee is due in full.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because Mr. Del Campo is pro se, we construe his filings liberally, but we do not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

2.   20-2114, ROA at 5, 10; 20-2136, ROA Vol. I, at 10.

3.   20-2114, ROA at 50; 20-2136, ROA Vol. I, at 62.

Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Circuit Judge