Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
Megan Kyte appealed the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S. Code 1983 complaint.
According to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, the district court didn’t reach the merits of Kyte’s complaint, which asserts various constitutional violations arising from her criminal conviction in Oregon state court. Instead, it dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a prior court order that prohibits Kyte from filing new civil actions in the District of Colorado unless she obtains either representation from a licensed attorney or permission from the court to proceed pro se. The district court also denied her request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, concluding any appeal “would not be taken in good faith.”
On appeal to the 10th Circuit, Kyte resubmitted portions of her complaint and faulted the district court for failing to “respond to the case.” According to the 10th Circuit, nowhere in her brief did she address the basis for the district court’s dismissal: her failure to comply with the court’s prior order imposing filing restrictions. The 10th Circuit liberally construed Kyte’s pro se filings, it didn’t act as her advocate, the opinion added, citing the 10th Circuit decision Childers v. Crow. The 10th Circuit explained failing to address the basis for the district court’s ruling, Kyte waived any challenge to it, citing the 10th Circuit decision Toevs v. Reid.
The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court’s order and denied Kyte’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because she didn’t offer “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument” supporting her appeal, citing its decision in Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, LLC.