Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03065/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

PtLBO 

United Statei Chun of Appdis UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 1'cnth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 311990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

WILLIAM F. SCHLICHER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

FRITZ YOUNG; LEE GIBBONS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3065 

(D. C. No. 90-3060-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and 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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This prose appeal arises from the action of the United 

States District Court in dismissing Mr. Schlicher's civil rights 

complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3065 Document: 010110036126 Date Filed: 05/31/1990 Page: 1 
', 

The district court stated as follows: 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Kansas State Penitentiary 

("KSP"), Lansing, Kansas, claims that the defendants 

have violated his constitutional rights and have 

"disabled plaintiff medically and impaired him mentally 

for unknown time". The cause of action apparently 

arises out of plaintiff's continued disagreement with 

KSP staff members over proper medical treatment. 

Having reviewed the complaint, the court finds that 

plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon 

which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's allegations 

are vague and conclusory and fail to demonstrate any 

specific instances of misconduct on the part of either 

named defendant. Plaintiff has thus failed to set forth 

a legitimate basis for imposing liability on the 

defendants. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 s. Ct. 1827 

(1989). Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

On appeal Mr. Schlicher does not directly challenge the 

conclusions of law cited by the district judge. Mr. Schlicher 

does assert that when he filed the complaint it included "a 4 page 

supplement, 5 specific listed motions AND some 69 plus 

specific evidences/exhibits/rule/policy/order citations which are 

not listed on the lower court's docket sheet!" and argues that the 

court misuses its power and asserts the complaint should not be 

judged "by attorney standards." Mr. Schlicher believes the 

district court is ignoring existing law. He asks for a chance to 

prove discrimination. 

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, which 

includes the voluminous pleadings filed by Mr. Schlicher. Mr. 

Schlicher's pleadings may be best described by characterizing them 

as a rambling complaint against prison life. Mr. Schlicher 

characterizes the staff as "corrupt" and accuses them of "failing 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3065 Document: 010110036126 Date Filed: 05/31/1990 Page: 2 
to follow their own rules." He rails against working in the paint 

factory and laundry where he has been exposed to "fumes, 

allergians [sic] and other agents." He asserts the work at the 

laundry has caused "skin irritation and itching." He alleges that 

"the corruption ~ad and was continuing to threaten my health.'' He 

alleges that the named defendants "are/have and continue to 

capriciously interfere with, deny harass and endanger plaintiff 

for his medical problems." He alleges that "defendant are not 

medical persons but common ordinary subjects anyone could find in 

the local pool halls or street corners." He further alleges 

"they've ... effectively disabled him." Mr. Schlicher's pleadings 

continue at great length in a similar fashion. 

We agree with the district court. Plaintiff's allegations 

are vague and conclusory and fail to demonstrate any specific 

instances of misconduct on the part of the named defendants. 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The decision 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3065 Document: 010110036126 Date Filed: 05/31/1990 Page: 3