Rusk v. Kartchner

── Rusk v. Kartchner ── Case No.: 25-4076 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: March 17, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-4076 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 17, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ZACHARY RUSK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-4076 (D.C. No. 2:23-CV-00402-TC) MONTE KARTCHNER; SIM GILL; (D. Utah) CLIFFORD ROSS, III; BRYON STEWART; JONTHAN SCHOUMAN; SAM HESSI; FNU BLANCHE; SALT LAKE COUNTY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Zachary Rusk, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen his underlying lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Because Mr. Rusk proceeds pro se, his filings “are . . . construed liberally 1 and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”  Appellate Case: 25-4076 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 2 I. Background Mr. Rusk filed a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. After a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening, the district court denied Mr. Rusk’s motion and explained that the complaint did not present a colorable claim. The court detailed the deficiencies in the complaint and provided specific guidance on how he could cure them. It provided him with thirty days to file an amended complaint. Mr. Rusk did not do so. The district court then ordered him to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Rather than respond to the order to show cause or amend the complaint, Mr. Rusk filed a second motion for appointment of counsel. The district court denied the second motion and gave him an additional thirty days to respond. Again, rather than respond, Mr. Rusk filed a motion to recuse the judge and a notice of interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit. That appeal was dismissed. See Order, Rusk v. Kartchner, No. 24-4067 (10th Cir. July 2, 2024); R., vol. I. at 132. After the dismissal, the district court denied the motion to recuse and gave Mr. Rusk another thirty days to respond to the show cause order or file an amended complaint. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the court will not act as his advocate or “take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Id.