
    Martin VASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF KINSLEY, KANSAS, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-3175.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Oct. 8, 2008.
    Martin Vasquez, Larned, KS, pro se.
    Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Pro se Plaintiff Martin Vasquez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We review the court’s dismissal of his complaint de novo. See Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197,1201 (10th Cir.1996).

The Supreme Court has held that “a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents,” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), but will be held liable only where “action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort,” id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Even liberally construed, Plaintiffs complaint does not claim that the alleged malicious prosecution was caused by any such official policy, nor does the complaint reasonably suggest that such a claim could be supported. Therefore, for substantially the reasons delineated by the district court, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs claim.

We advise Plaintiff that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and we remind him that, upon incurring three strikes, he will no longer be able to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action in federal court unless he is “under imminent danger of serious injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We also remind Plaintiff of his obligation to continue making partial payments until his filing fee has been paid in full. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.
     