Appellate Case: 22-1173 Document: 010110787378 Date Filed: 12/21/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 21, 2022 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GREGORY D. CROSBY, a/k/a Gregory D. Cosby,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 22-1173 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-03233-LTB-GPG) WARDEN ADX; LT. BANELOUS, (D. Colo.) DHO Hearing Officer; J. HOLBROOK, Correctional Counselor,

Respondents - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Gregory D. Crosby is a federal inmate. He filed a habeas application under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming he had been denied due process in a disciplinary hearing.

The hearing stemmed from an incident report alleging he destroyed property. After

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 22-1173 Document: 010110787378 Date Filed: 12/21/2022 Page: 2

concluding Mr. Crosby did not exhaust administrative remedies, the district court

dismissed the suit without prejudice. Mr. Crosby appeals.1

The respondents urge us to dismiss this appeal as moot. It is moot, they say,

because Mr. Crosby has received all the relief this suit could provide. While the suit

was pending in the district court, Mr. Crosby gave notice that his incident report had

been expunged. But he maintained that he still sought monetary relief. Noting that

damages are not an available habeas remedy, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973), the respondents conclude the case is moot because a favorable decision

could not provide Mr. Crosby any further relief.

Mr. Crosby did not file a reply brief to address the respondents’ mootness

argument.2 By failing to address the mootness argument, he has waived any

responses that are not obvious. See Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009, 1031

(10th Cir. 2019) (“Eaton doesn’t respond to the state’s mootness argument in his

reply brief. Accordingly, we treat any non-obvious responses he could have made as

waived and assume the state’s mootness analysis is correct.”). Mootness, of course,

“is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.” Ind v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 801 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2015). But “our duty to consider unargued obstacles to subject

matter jurisdiction does not affect our discretion to decline to consider waived

1 Mr. Crosby represents himself, so we construe his filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 Mr. Crosby filed a notice informing the court that he did not intend to submit a reply brief. 2 Appellate Case: 22-1173 Document: 010110787378 Date Filed: 12/21/2022 Page: 3

arguments that might have supported such jurisdiction.” Tompkins v. U.S. Dep’t of

Veterans Affs., 16 F.4th 733, 735 n.1 (10th Cir. 2021) (brackets and internal

quotation marks omitted).

Seeing no obvious answer to the respondents’ mootness argument, we dismiss

this appeal. We deny Mr. Crosby’s motion to proceed without prepaying costs and

fees because he does not advance “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and

facts.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge

3