Adam Strege v. Commissioner, Ssa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ADAM STREGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SSA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 21-1311
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03084-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before PHILLIPS, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Adam Strege, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s orders on his
post-judgment filings, including an amended complaint and motions to appoint a case
manager to assist with electronic filing. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
* 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
1 We liberally construe Mr. Strege’s filings but “cannot take on the
responsibility of serving as [his] attorney.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux &
Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 18, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
In 2020, Mr. Strege filed a pro se complaint against the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration. The district court dismissed the action as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), explaining that the complaint “describe[d] a
fantastic or delusional scenario of the government swapping babies and putting
human hearts in nuclear reactors” and that “[t]he nonsensical allegations do not
support an arguable claim for relief, whether the claim is for false arrest, malicious
prosecution, or review of a Social Security determination.” R., vol. 1 at 52 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The court also warned “that repetitive filings in this action
may result in the imposition of sanctions, such as filing restrictions.” Id. at 53.
Mr. Strege then appealed, and we dismissed the appeal as frivolous, noting that he
“present[ed] conclusory and fantastical assertions” and failed to “explain[] the basis
of his underlying claims.” Strege v. Comm’r, 848 F. App’x 368, 370 (10th Cir.
2021).
After our mandate issued, Mr. Strege filed an amended complaint in district
court, again raising fantastical and incoherent allegations. In a minute order, the
court explained it was taking no action on Mr. Strege’s filing because the case had
been dismissed with prejudice. The court also repeated its warning regarding the
potential for sanctions. Undeterred, Mr. Strege filed two motions to appoint a case
manager and a motion seeking assistance with electronic filing. Echoing its prior
order, the court denied the motions because the case had been dismissed and
reiterated its warning regarding possible sanctions. Mr. Strege appealed.
Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
“[D]istrict courts generally have broad discretion to manage their dockets.”
Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134, 1140 (10th Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, as with his prior appeal, Mr. Strege’s
brief contains only unintelligible ramblings. He offers no coherent argument, let
alone one that “explain[s] what was wrong with the reasoning that the district court
relied on in reaching its decision.” Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364,
1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, because “it lacks an arguable basis in either law
or fact,” Mr. Strege’s appeal is frivolous. Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d 1218, 1222
(10th Cir. 2002).
We therefore dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i).
We also deny his motion for a resolution of his appeal as moot. We warn Mr. Strege
that he could be subject to filing restrictions in this court if he submits further
frivolous filings. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2008); Andrews
v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007). And we deny his motion to
proceed without prepayment of costs or fees due to the lack of “a reasoned,
nonfrivolous argument.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir.
1991). We remind Mr. Strege that he remains obligated to pay the full filing fee.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-1311 Document: 010110647144 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --