Banks v. Hickenlooper, 702 F. App'x 771

Plaintiff Torrey Banks, proceeding pro se, sued the Colorado Governor and various state and federal officials alleging violations of Colorado’s detainer statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-60-501 / Interstate Agreement on Detainers).
The district court identified pleading defects, allowed an opportunity to amend, and Banks filed an amended complaint asserting malicious prosecution, obstruction of justice, and due-process claims.
The district court dismissed the malicious prosecution and obstruction claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and dismissed the due-process claim for failure to satisfy Rule 8; judgment entered for defendants (two claims with prejudice, one without).
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed under the liberal standard for pro se filings but noted pro se litigants are not excused from briefing requirements or from making reasoned arguments on appeal.
Banks’ appellate brief merely restated allegations and failed to meaningfully challenge the district court’s rulings; the panel held he waived appellate review by not advancing reasoned arguments.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, denied Banks’ motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, and ordered immediate payment of the filing fee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred dismissing claims as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)	Banks contended his claims (malicious prosecution, obstruction) had merit under the detainer statute	Defendants argued claims were legally deficient/frivolous and lacked plausible factual basis	Affirmed — Banks did not defend these rulings on appeal; claims properly dismissed as frivolous
Whether due-process claim met Rule 8 pleading standards	Banks asserted a due-process violation tied to detainer procedures	Defendants argued the claim failed to meet Rule 8’s notice pleading requirements	Affirmed — district court permissibly dismissed the claim for inadequate pleading
Whether pro se status excuses briefing deficiencies on appeal	Banks relied on pro se status and liberal pleading standard	Defendants relied on applicable precedent that pro se litigants must still present reasoned arguments	Affirmed — pro se status did not relieve Banks of appellate briefing obligations; failure to brief waived issues
Whether to grant in forma pauperis for appeal	Banks sought to proceed without prepayment of costs/fees	Defendants opposed, citing frivolousness and lack of nonfrivolous arguments	Denied — no reasoned, nonfrivolous argument shown; fee must be paid immediately

Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir.) (pro se filings given liberal construction but courts will not act as counsel)
Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 1196 (10th Cir.) (courts may ignore technical defects if pleadings can reasonably be read to state a valid claim)
Harsco Corp. v. Renner, 475 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir.) (issues inadequately addressed in an opening brief are waived)
DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir.) (standard for denying in forma pauperis on appeal when no reasoned, nonfrivolous argument is presented)