Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03183/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03183-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVID FRANK BAGGULEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circuit 

FEB 2 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-3183 

(D.C. No. 89-3225-0) 

(D. Kansas) 

JACKIE A. RAPSTINE, GARY D. 

ROBERTS, R. L. MATTHEWS, N. LEE 

CONNER, FLORA MCGEE, DAN 

MCCAULEY, G. C. WILKINSON, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

BEFORE MCKAY, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 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. 10 Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3183 Document: 01019964947 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 1 
On December 29, 1988, the appellant, David F. Bagguley, an 

inmate of the U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, filed an 

action in the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas, case no. 88-3486, against various corrections officials, 

contesting, among other things, continued attempts to collect a 

fine, and complaining about various actions or omissions on the 

part of the defendants. In approximately May of 1989, the 

defendants in case no. 88-3486 filed a motion to dismiss supported 

by various documents. Thereafter, on May 31, 1989, Bagguley 

filed the action from which this appeal is taken, alleging that 

documents filed on behalf of the defendants in case no. 88-3486, 

are false and fraudulent and that, as a result, Bagguley's civil 

rights were violated. In his prayer for relief, Bagguley asked 

for money damages and that defendants be imprisoned. He also 

duplicated the major part of the relief requested in case no. 

88-3486. 

The district court dismissed the instant suit under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d) stating: 

"Plaintiff's allegations make clear the fact that he 

opposes the statement of facts presented by the 

defendants in case no. 88-3486. The court suggests that 

the appropriate remedy for plaintiff is to file a 

response to the defendant's motion to dismiss [in case 

no. 88-3486) controverting the facts he refers to 

herein. This court can then make an informed decision 

on case no. 88-3486." 

Order of June 29, 1989, R. Vol. 1, Ex. 4 at 1. 

We agree with the district court. Bagguley takes issue with 

documents filed in case no. 88-3486. His remedy is to pursue the 

matter in that case, and not to file a new case. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3183 Document: 01019964947 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 2 
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ordered as 

follows: (1) the filing fee on appeal is waived; (2) the motion 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied for the reason 

that the appeal is frivolous, see Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 

1962); (3) the appeal is DISMISSED; and (4) the mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3183 Document: 01019964947 Date Filed: 02/28/1990 Page: 3