Johnson v. Gonzales

── Johnson v. Gonzales ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court WALTER JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-1321 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-00987-LTB-RTG) SPECIAL INVESTIGATION SERVICE (D. Colo.) LT. GONZALES; PSYCHOLOGY MEGAN STEVENS, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Walter Johnson is a federal prisoner at the administrative maximum security (ADMAX) prison in Florence, Colorado. Proceeding pro se, he sued defendants in their individual capacities, requesting money damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.  Appellate Case: 25-1321 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 Page: 2 The district court allowed Mr. Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and a magistrate judge reviewed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B). The magistrate judge concluded the complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and ordered Mr. Johnson to file an amended complaint. He did so. Yet the factual allegations in his amended complaint were essentially the same as those asserted in his first complaint. They state, in their entirety: SiS [presumably, Special Investigation Service] Lt. [G]onzalez and psychology, Stevens contributed to deprive me the credit to reduce my time in maximum confinement. When this happen[ed]: January 6, 2020 medical J. Seroksi, PA-C let SiS Lt. [G]onzalez and Psychology, Stevens know I was on some medication for urinary straining but still SiS Lt. [G]onzalez sent the U.A. test I can’t take to make sure I get a incident report to not get the credit to reduce my time, in Florence A.D.X. maximum confinement. [H]ow it harmed me: Abuse of Authority trying to intimidate me what medical say don’t mean nothing all because I won’t be a informant for SiS but SiS Lt. [G]onzalez tell me just help him out he will take me off the piss test indefinitely. What rights got violated: Eighth Amendment I’m challenging condition[s] of confinement. R. at 60. The magistrate judge concluded the amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because its allegations were “vague and difficult to understand,” and “failed to explain, in a clear and understandable way, what exactly each named Defendant di