Chrisco v. Holubek, 711 F. App'x 885

Plaintiff Luke Irvin Chrisco, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed two separate § 1983 actions complaining of retaliation, denial of access to courts, due process, and equal protection related to prison library and grievance practices at San Carlos Correctional Facility.
Appeal No. 17-1169: Claims arose no later than September 16, 2014, but Chrisco filed in January 2017—more than two years later; he sought equitable tolling based on alleged obstruction by prison officials, mental-health episodes, lack of glasses, delayed materials, and other impediments.
The district court rejected equitable tolling because Chrisco filed numerous other lawsuits, grievances, and state filings during the limitations period, and dismissed the claims as time-barred and frivolous.
Appeal No. 17-1196: Chrisco alleged sovereign-citizen–related claims and other grievances from 2015–2016; the magistrate ordered an amended complaint to correct pleading defects, Chrisco did not amend, and the district court dismissed the original pleading as frivolous.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed both dismissals as frivolous, denied leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, ordered immediate payment of appellate fees, denied a motion to supplement the record, and counted the dismissals as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations / accrual	Chrisco argued equitable tolling due to prison obstruction, sedations, lack of glasses, delayed materials, and mental-health watches	Defendants relied on two-year Colorado limitations, accrual no later than Sept. 16, 2014, and evidence Chrisco litigated during the period	Court held claim time-barred; equitable tolling denied because Chrisco’s litigation activity showed he was not prevented from filing
Sufficiency of pleading / failure to amend	Chrisco said his original complaint was adequate and he chose to appeal rather than amend	Court/magistrate said complaint lacked specific facts and ordered an amended complaint on a form; warned dismissal would follow if not amended	Court held failure to amend justified dismissal as frivolous; no relief for choosing not to amend
Frivolousness / IFP on appeal	Chrisco sought leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and appealed the dismissals	Court reviewed filings and record for nonfrivolous grounds	Court held appeals frivolous, denied IFP, required immediate payment, and counted two strikes under § 1915(g)
Motion to supplement record	Chrisco moved to supplement with exhibits from unrelated case	Defendants opposed as irrelevant to these appeals	Court denied the motion as unwarranted and unrelated to the appealed issues

Bd. of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478 (1980) (state limitations and tolling rules apply to § 1983 claims)
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) (§ 1983 best characterized as personal-injury action for limitations purposes)
Blake v. Dickason, 997 F.2d 749 (10th Cir. 1993) (Colorado two-year residual statute governs § 1983 limitations)
Kripp v. Luton, 466 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2006) (accrual when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury)
Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2003) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (limits on court serving as pro se litigant’s advocate)
Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036 (10th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff bears burden to show factual basis for tolling when claim appears time-barred)
DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir. 1991) (standard for proceeding without prepayment of fees on appeal)
Jennings v. Natrona Cty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 1999) (dismissals as frivolous count as strikes under § 1915(g))
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759 (2015) (overruling aspects of prior law relevant to § 1915(g) context)