Melnick v. Camper, No. 20-1417 (10th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Appellate Case: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, November 30, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN CAMPER, Director of Colorado Bureau of Investigation, in his official capacity, No. 20-1417 (D.C. No. 1:18-CV-02885-CMA-KLM) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Hunter Melnick is a convicted sex offender who challenges the constitutionality of Colorado’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“CSORA”) on several grounds. The district court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion applying Supreme Court and circuit precedent, dismissed Melnick’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). As the district court * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 20-1417 Document: 010110611722 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 2 explained, many of Melnick’s allegations stem from a misreading of CSORA. Melnick appeals that dismissal pro se and raises nearly all the same arguments he raised in the district court. Yet, none of Melnick’s arguments point us to legal errors warranting reversal.1 So, upon review of the record de novo and exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.2 Entered for the Court Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge 1 As a pro se litigant, we must liberally construe Melnick’s pleadings, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), without acting as his advocate, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). 2 We also deny Melnick’s motion to supplement the record. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.