Full Opinion

Appellate Case: 26-1188 Document: 22 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 12, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOSEPH M. FLOREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 26-1188 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-03420-LTB-RTG) TODD BLANCHE; PETER MCNEILLY; (D. Colo.) THOMAS MINSER; DEANA AMBROSEN; BRIAN DUNN; CURRENT DIRECTOR, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; CHRISTOPHER PYLER; GALLUZO; ROBINSON; HATHAWAY; MAY; SANDUSKY; SOLIS; SUMNER; SLAGLE; NICHOLAS TREVIZO; JESSE SIMPSON; MATTHEW HEADLEY; ERICKSON; WOOTEN; M. PORTILLO; LEINEBERGER; C. CALLAHAN; LEONEL ESPINO-REYNA; J. FLORES; PAINTER; CESAR GONZALEZ; GONZALES; D. WALKER; LAUBERT; ROBERT COMBES; SARACINO; DUSTIN NAYLOR; BRIGHTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; BRIGHTON POLICE AND COMMERCE CITY POLICE JOINT TASKFORCE; COMMERCE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; UNITED STATES MARSHALL SERVICE; GEO MARSHALL SERVICE; WESTMINSTER POLICE DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM MARSHALL; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND ALL FDC FEDERAL DETENTION FACILITIES AND ALL FEDERAL HOLDING FACILITIES; Appellate Case: 26-1188 Document: 22 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 2 ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; ADAMS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; DOUGLAS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY; FDC ENGLEWOOD AND EVERYONE EMPLOYED THERE, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________ Joseph M. Florez, proceeding pro se, 1 is a pretrial detainee and defendant in a federal criminal case in which he is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He sued 48 state and federal defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that § 922(g)(1) is * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. ** 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. 1 Because Mr. Florez appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). Also, he is subject to the same procedural rules governing other litigants. See United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300, 1307-08 (10th Cir. 2018). 2 Appellate Case: 26-1188 Document: 22 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 3 unconstitutional under (1) the Second Amendment and (2) the Bills of Attainder Clauses, U.S. Const. art 1, §§ 9-10. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Mr. Florez’s second amended complaint as frivolous. ROA at 189-93; see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He said Tenth Circuit precedent foreclosed Mr. Florez’s challenge to § 922(g)(1), citing Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025). ROA at 191. 2 The district court, noting that Mr. Florez did not file a timely objection to the Recommendation, “accepted and adopted” the Recommendation and ordered that Mr. Florez’s “Second Amended Prisoner Complaint and this action are dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.” Id. at 196 (citation omitted). 3 Our decision in Vincent v. Bondi forecloses Mr. Florez’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1). And courts uniformly have held that § 922(g)(1) is not a bill of attainder because it does not determine guilt or remove the protections of trial. See, e.g., United States v. Hemmings, 258 F.3d 587, 594-95 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Davis, 27 F. App’x 592, 600 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished); United States v. 2 The magistrate judge also said Mr. Florez should not be able to bring his civil action on these claims when his criminal case is pending. ROA at 192. We do not address this ground. 3 The Clerk’s Office “directed [Mr. Florez ] to file a written response in this court addressing whether he waived his right to appellate review of the district court’s dismissal order by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s Recommendation.” Dkt. No. 2. Mr. Florez responded that he filed objections within 14 days after he received the Recommendation. Dkt. No. 7. We do not address this issue. 3 Appellate Case: 26-1188 Document: 22 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 4 Stauffer, No. 97-10333, 1998 WL 476709, at *1 (9th Cir. July 29, 1998) (unpublished). 4 We therefore affirm the district court. We deny Mr. Florez’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. Entered for the Court Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge 4 Unpublished cases are not binding precedent, but we may consider them for their persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 4