e look to the specific allegations in the complaint to

determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Id. at 1218

(quotation omitted). “‘A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d

1063, 1068 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

(2009)). Since Menefee and Blevins are proceeding pro se, their complaints must

be construed liberally. See Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218.

      We have carefully reviewed the record for both district court cases, and

conclude that Menefee’s and Blevins’ claims, which were in all material respects

identical, were frivolous and were properly dismissed. See Schlicher v. Thomas,

111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997) (holding that claim is frivolous if it is “based

                                        -7-
on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or “founded on clearly baseless factual

contentions” (quotations omitted)). In light of the clear authority from this court

cited by the district court to both Menefee and Blevins, their reiteration of the

same arguments on appeal to challenge the dismissals is also frivolous. We

therefore dismiss both appeals as frivolous on the merits and assess a strike

against both Menefee and Blevins under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings,

175 F.3d at 780. The district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim in each

district court case also counts as a strike under § 1915(g) against both Menefee

and Blevins. See Jennings, 175 F.3d at 780. Thus, a total of two strikes is

assessed against each plaintiff. Because we uphold the dismissal of both

complaints, the issue of the severance of the two cases is moot, as raised by

Menefee in No. 09-3186 and Blevins in No. 09-3202.

      In No. 09-3202, Blevins also challenges the district court’s denial of his

motion for leave to proceed ifp in the 