Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03319/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03319-0/pdf.json

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

---

J • 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of J\ppea,Js 

Tench Cirmit 

ROBERT FRANCIS SMITH, JR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STEVEN DAVIES; UNIT TEAM MANAGER ) 

RUTLEDGE; RAYMOND ROBERTS; EDWARD ) 

MURRAY; MARK DAVIS; WAYNE SHIPMAN; ) 

PHILIP TENDER; MADDEN; M. SLUSHER ) 

and WILLIAM CUMMINGS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

JUL 2 6 1990 

.&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 89-3319 

89-3324 

(D.C. No. 89-3408-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and TACHA, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff-appellant Robert 

Francis Smith's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees. Smith is suing various officials of 

* 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: 89-3319 Document: 010110038744 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 1 
the Department of Corrections of the states of Kansas and Virginia 

challenging his transfer to the Kansas State Penitentiary. Smith 

contends inter alia that his transfer was instituted in 

retaliation for his having filed lawsuits against the Virginia 

department, and for his having helped other prisoners file legal 

documents. This retaliatory transfer he alleges constitutes a 

violation of his rights, actionable under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. In an 

order of November 19, 1989, the district court granted Smith leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed two of the named 

defendants for failure to state a claim. Smith seeks to appeal 

this dismissal. 

In an order dated December 4, 1989, the district court denied 

Smith certification for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because the November 19 order does not resolve 

all of Smith's claims against all defendants, it is not a final 

order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Absent a certification of 

necessity from the district court, or extraordinary circumstances 

not present here, this court lacks jurisdiction over appeals from 

nonfinal orders. See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 

848 (10th Cir. 1986); Lamp v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 1167, 1169 (10th 

Cir. 1981); C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and 

Procedure§ 3914 at 542-43 (1976). 

In order to succeed on his motion, plaintiff-appellant must 

show both: 

1. A financial inability to pay the required filing 

fees, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3319 Document: 010110038744 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 2 
2. The existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument 

on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on 

appeal. 

See 28 u.s.c. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F. 2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

We conclude that appellant can make no rational argument on 

the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, as required by paragraph two above. Therefore, the motion for leave to 

proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. 

It is further ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. The appeal is dismissed because no rational argument can 

be made; and 

3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3319 Document: 010110038744 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 3