Adam Strege v. Commissioner, Ssa

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ADAM STREGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SSA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-1414
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03084-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before HARTZ, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Adam Strege, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals from the dismissal of
the complaint as frivolous. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
* We conclude that oral argument would not materially help us to
decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and
the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
Our order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
1 Mr. Strege’s pro se status entitles him to a liberal reading of his
pleadings. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.
2003). We thus make some allowances for deficiencies, such as
unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, failure to cite appropriate legal
authority, and confusion of legal theories. See Garrett v. Selby Connor
Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we “cannot take
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
May 19, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1414 Document: 010110524526 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Because the complaint was largely unintelligible, the district court
issued two orders to cure, giving Mr. Strege an opportunity to better
explain the basis for his claims. He responded by filing a new complaint,
which consisted primarily of rambling, unintelligible allegations about the
denial of Social Security benefits, the agency’s historical handling of his
benefits checks (making them payable to his mother), his arrest and brief
stay in jail for filing a false Social Security claim, and various other
governmental actions.
The district court concluded that Mr. Strege was trying to appeal the
Social Security Administration’s termination of benefits or to assert a civil
rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Given this conclusion, the court
dismissed the complaint as frivolous for two reasons. First, the court found
that the complaint
lacks coherent factual allegations or claims. Mr. Strege describes
a fantastic or delusional scenario of the government swapping
babies and putting human hearts in nuclear reactors. The
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, and a
more specific pleading would not cure the legally frivolous
nature of the purported claim.
on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing
arguments” for him. Id.
Appellate Case: 20-1414 Document: 010110524526 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
R. at 52 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 Second, the court determined
that “any [§ 1983] claim that could be deduced from” Mr. Strege’s
allegations would be barred by the two-year statute of limitations because
the claim stemmed from events preceding the suit by more than two years.
Id.; see Blake v. Dickason, 997 F.2d 749, 750–51 (10th Cir. 1993)
(applying Colorado’s two-year limitations period for personal injury
actions to § 1983 claims).
Mr. Strege has filed two IFP motions and maintains that the district
court erred by dismissing his complaint.
We review the dismissal for an abuse of discretion. See Schlicher v.
Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court cannot
dismiss a claim as frivolous just because the underlying claims are
unlikely. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). But the district
court can “dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory”
and “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss
those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” such as
“claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989). In reviewing a dismissal for frivolousness,
appellate courts “consider, among other things, whether the plaintiff was
2 With respect to the denial-of-benefits claim, we note that Mr. Strege
did not explain the administrative procedure that led to the cessation of
benefits and what steps he took to reinstate his benefits, much less the
legal basis for his assertion that the agency’s decision was wrong.
Appellate Case: 20-1414 Document: 010110524526 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
proceeding pro se; whether the [district] court inappropriately resolved
genuine issues of disputed fact; whether [it] applied erroneous legal
conclusions; whether [it] has provided a statement explaining the dismissal
that facilitates intelligent appellate review[;]” and whether the dismissal
was with prejudice or without leave to amend when “frivolous factual
allegations could be remedied through more specific pleading.” Denton,
504 U.S. at 34 (italics, internal citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
The district court acted within its discretion by considering Mr.
Strege’s pro se status, declining to resolve any issues of fact, and
explaining the basis for its ruling. In his opening brief, Mr. Strege does not
give any reason to think that he could have cured the defects in the
complaint. See id.
His appeal is also frivolous. He presents conclusory and fantastical
assertions, but he has not explained the basis of his underlying claims. So
we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1180
(10th Cir. 2008) (“An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious, or the
appellant’s arguments of error are wholly without merit.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Appellate Case: 20-1414 Document: 010110524526 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
We also deny Mr. Strege’s requests for leave to appear in forma
pauperis and for leave to electronically file a thousand pages of evidence.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1414 Document: 010110524526 Date Filed: 05/19/2021 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --