The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reviewing two consolidated appeals filed by Justin Rueb, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, challenging the dismissal of federal civil rights claims against several attorneys. The appeals, filed Jan. 27, 2026, consolidate cases numbered 25-1135 and 25-1138, both originating from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Rueb filed the underlying lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute that allows individuals to sue state actors for constitutional violations. The defendants in both cases include attorneys Patrick James McCarville, Jacquelynn N. Rich-Fredericks, Amy Christine Colony, Jennifer L. White, and The Law Firm of Patterson Ripplinger, P.C.
According to court documents, the attorneys were involved in various capacities in state court proceedings concerning Rueb, including a criminal case against him and subsequent state cases he brought alleging legal malpractice. The specific nature of the alleged constitutional violations and the circumstances surrounding the state court proceedings are not detailed in the available appellate filings.
The district court cases that form the basis of these appeals are numbered 1:24-CV-03156-LTB-RTG and 1:24-CV-03152-LTB-RTG, indicating they were filed in 2024 before Judge Lewis T. Babcock and Magistrate Judge Raymond T. Garcia. Both cases were ultimately dismissed by the district court, prompting Rueb's appeals to the Tenth Circuit.
Section 1983 claims against attorneys can be particularly challenging to pursue successfully. Courts generally recognize that attorneys acting in their professional capacity are not typically considered state actors subject to § 1983 liability unless they are acting under color of state law in some official capacity or in conspiracy with state officials. Private attorneys representing clients in civil matters generally do not meet this threshold.
However, the analysis can be different when attorneys are involved in criminal proceedings or are acting as court-appointed counsel, particularly if they are alleged to have conspired with state officials or acted beyond the scope of their professional duties in ways that violate constitutional rights.
The fact that Rueb is proceeding pro se, meaning he is representing himself without counsel, is significant in the appellate context. Pro se litigants face substantial challenges in navigating complex federal civil rights law and appellate procedure. Courts generally hold pro se pleadings to less stringent standards than those prepared by attorneys, but procedural requirements and substantive legal standards remain the same.
Prisoner civil rights litigation under § 1983 has been subject to increased scrutiny and procedural hurdles since the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996. This federal law requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing federal lawsuits and imposes various other restrictions designed to reduce frivolous prisoner litigation.
The Tenth Circuit panel reviewing these appeals consists of Circuit Judge Harris L Hartz, Senior Circuit Judge Carlos F. Lucero, and Circuit Judge Jerome A. Phillips. This three-judge panel will review the district court's dismissal decisions for legal error, applying relevant standards of review that depend on the specific grounds for dismissal.
If the district court dismissed the cases for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the appellate court will review that decision de novo, examining whether Rueb's complaints contained sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims for relief under established legal standards.
Alternatively, if the dismissals were based on other grounds such as immunity doctrines, statute of limitations issues, or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, different legal analyses and standards of review would apply.
The consolidation of the two appeals suggests they involve similar legal issues and factual circumstances, allowing the court to address related claims efficiently in a single proceeding. This is common practice when multiple cases involving the same parties or legal theories are pending before the same appellate court.
Given the pro se nature of the appeals and the typical challenges faced by prisoner civil rights claims, Rueb will need to demonstrate that the district court committed reversible error in dismissing his claims. This requires showing either that his complaints adequately stated claims for constitutional violations or that he should have been given an opportunity to amend his pleadings to cure any deficiencies.
The outcome of these appeals could have implications for how similar claims against attorneys involved in state court proceedings are evaluated under federal civil rights law. However, the specific circumstances of each case typically determine whether attorneys can be held liable under § 1983, making broad precedential impact limited.
The Tenth Circuit has not yet announced a schedule for oral arguments or indicated when decisions in these consolidated appeals might be issued. The court will likely issue a written opinion addressing the legal issues raised by Rueb's challenges to the district court dismissals.