Case Explained: Scott v. Ward, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-30 Docket: 5:24-CV-03095-JWB-GEB) The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the appellant failed to present a nonfrivolous argument on appeal because he did not respond to the district court’s reasoning regarding his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims for serious medical needs. Specifically, the appellant offered no cognizable argument demonstrating that individual defendants had a sufficiently culpable state of mind or meaningfully addressed municipal liability and other theories. Under the standard for in forma pauperis status, an appeal is not frivolous only if the appellant can make a rational argument on the law or facts; because the appellant failed to challenge the district court’s findings, his arguments were deemed insufficient. As a practical consequence, the appeal is dismissed, and because this constitutes the appellant’s third strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)), he must prepay all filing fees for future civil cases and appeals. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.