violation theory to the district court, it is clear that the complaint alleged injury each time the IFAO garnished his account. Pursuant to our obligation to construe pro se filings liberally, we find that Loard sufficiently raised the issue to the district court. 2 . Loard also alleged the defendants, by rejecting the grievances he filed in 2010, conspired to defraud him. This claim is not barred by the statute of limitations, but the district court was correct to conclude that Loard has introduced no facts that tend to show a conspiracy existed. Each defendant's independent rejection of Loard’s grievances, pursuant to applicable DOC collection policies, does not establish the existence of a conspiracy to defraud. Cf. Backus v. Ortiz, 246 Fed.Appx. 561, 565-66 (10th Cir.2007)
holding the original notice and verified account did not substantiate plaintiffs claim and was insufficient for the court to enter a default judgment against the plaintiffs holding that rookerfeldman does not apply when the plaintiffs injury rests not on the state court judgment itself but rather on the alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the defendant holding constitutional prison officials decision to impound a prisoners account pending his compliance with a restitution order and characterizing the prisoners complaint as a restriction on his freedom to use his funds in a particular way rather than a total deprivation of the money holding that defendants collection of money from plaintiffs account to satisfy restitution order demonstrated only a concerted effort to apply plaintiffs funds to the payment of the criminal judgment entered against him not a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights holding provisions of chapter 910 apply only to a criminal restitution order