Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03077/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03077-0/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 

RAYMOND H. LADD, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

FI LED 

United States Cot:rt of Appeals 

Tent~ Circuit 

OCT 2 4 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

C!erk 

) 

DR. STEVE J. DAVIES; D. T. BERRYE; ) 

DEFENDANT GEE; JIM BARKLEY; MR. ) 

PAYNE; K. C. YOUNG; MAJOR STUPAR; ) 

No. 90-3077 

(D.C. No. 89-3324-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

LINDEN G. APPEL; MR. MCMILLAN; ) 

DEFENDANT MACMURPHY; MR. SMITH; ) 

RAY ROBERTS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond H. Ladd appeals prose from the 

District Court's denial of a temporary restraining order enjoining 

the Kansas Secretary of Corrections from transferring him to 

another state or institution. Ladd also appeals from the trial 

* 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: 90-3077 Document: 010110064820 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 1 
court's order denying him leave to proceed on appeal in forrna 

pauperis. 

Ladd has no right to choose his place of confinement and may 

be transferred for any reason or no reason at all. Robinson v. 

Benson, 570 F.2d 920, 923 (10th Cir. 1978); see Olim v. 

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983) (prisoner has no 

constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular facility 

or state). Our review of the record and the appellant's brief 

convinces us that the trial court was correct in denying Ladd's 

motion for a temporary restraining order. 

Ladd's appeal lacks an arguable basis both in law and fact 

and consequently is frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. 

Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court's denial of leave to proceed in forrna pauperis and dismiss 

this appeal pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

DISMISSED. 

Entered for the court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3077 Document: 010110064820 Date Filed: 10/24/1990 Page: 2