Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01346/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01346-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

KAREN GUMS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

're>~rr. r~r~,•: 

APR 2 3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, 

DUANE L. WOODWARD, Attorney 

General of Colorado, 

No. 89-1346 

(D.C. No. 89-C-1137) 

(D. Colo.) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

f d . . d ** Be ore LOGAN, SEYMOUR an BALDOCK, Circuit Ju ges. 

Plaintiff-appellant Karen A. Gums appeals prose from the 

dismissal of her complaint and action against Colorado State 

University and the Colorado Attorney General brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The district court granted 

plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), but 

subsequently dismissed with prejudice holding, inter alia, that 

plaintiff's action was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-1346 Document: 01019971975 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
Plaintiff has not specifically sought IFP status from this court 

on appeal, however, construing her prose pleadings liberally 

under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), we assume that 

she seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In order to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff must advance 

an arguable basis in law or in fact supporting her theory of 

recovery. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). 

Where a claim fails to advance such a basis, it is deemed 

frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Id. 

Here, Plaintiff's brief is unintelligible and totally fails to 

advance any rational factual or legal argument as to why the 

district court should be reversed. See Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 

F.2d 852 (10th Cir. 1981). We therefore hold that plaintiff's 

appeal is frivolous and subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1346 Document: 01019971975 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2