Todd v. United States
696 F. App'x 924
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Byron Todd, a Colorado state prisoner, sued the United States (Bivens) and Colorado and New Mexico (§ 1983) alleging civil‑rights violations and seeking money damages and expungement.
- A magistrate judge found sovereign immunity barred the claims and ordered Todd to file an amended complaint within 30 days, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
- The district court received no amended complaint by the deadline and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, then entered judgment for defendants and denied Todd leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
- On appeal Todd, proceeding pro se, asserted he mailed an amended complaint within the 30‑day period (April 22, 2017) but prison staff intercepted his outgoing legal mail; he submitted a prison outgoing legal‑mail log entry supporting the mailing.
- The Tenth Circuit found the district court was unaware of Todd’s interference allegation and concluded the court should be given the opportunity to consider any post‑judgment motion based on that information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute was appropriate | Todd says he timely mailed an amended complaint but prison staff intercepted it | District court treated lack of an amended complaint as failure to comply and dismissed | Vacated and remanded for district court to consider post‑judgment motion raising mail‑interception claim |
| Whether appellate ifp should be granted | Todd moves to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal | District court found appeal not in good faith and denied ifp | Court granted Todd’s application to proceed ifp |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (establishes implied damages remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for determining good faith to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal)
- AdvantEdge Bus. Grp., L.L.C. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for dismissals for failure to prosecute)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (limits of liberal construction for pro se litigants)