FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
RAMON M. DEL CAMPO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 20-2114
(D.C. No. 2:20-CV-00639-RB-CG)
COMMUNITY OF HOPE; NICOLE (D. N.M.)
MARTINEZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RAMON M. DEL CAMPO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 20-2136
(D.C. No. 2:20-CV-00636-JAP-SMV)
DONA ANA COUNTY DETENTION (D. N.M.)
CENTER; BRYAN BAKER,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
_________________________________
Ramon M. Del Campo appeals the dismissal of two cases. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1
In each case, Mr. Del Campo filed a form civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Rather than allege facts to establish a § 1983 claim, each complaint asked the
reader to “[p]lease view” information from a different case that he had filed. 2 In each
case, the district court notified Mr. Del Campo that it would not “comb the record of this
or other cases,” and it granted him leave to file an amended complaint. 3 In response, Mr.
Del Campo filed various motions, but he did not file an amended complaint. The district
court then dismissed each case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure
to state a claim. Mr. Del Campo appealed both dismissals.
The briefs Mr. Del Campo has filed in each appeal do not explain why he failed to
file amended complaints or why his original complaints stated a claim. We therefore
affirm the district court judgment in each case. In 20-2114, we deny Mr. Del Campo’s
1
Because Mr. Del Campo is pro se, we construe his filings liberally, but we do
not act as his advocate. Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
2
20-2114, ROA at 5, 10; 20-2136, ROA Vol. I, at 10.
3
20-2114, ROA at 50; 20-2136, ROA Vol. I, at 62.
2
motion to expand the record. In 20-2136, we deny his motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, so his filing fee is due in full.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Circuit Judge
3