Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07037/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07037-0/pdf.json

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

---

I 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 141991 

CHARLES CURTIS HARRIS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

N. H. SCOTT, Warden; JULIUS ) 

HASS, Superintendent of Education; ) 

ESTER MATTHEWS, Unit Manager; ) 

DANNY ALEXANDER, Case Manager, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-7037 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 90-445-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

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. 

Charles Curtis Harris, an inmate at Jackie Brannon 

Correctional Center, McAlester, Oklahoma, appeals the dismissal of 

his civil rights action, pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983, against 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-7037 Document: 010110132062 Date Filed: 08/14/1991 Page: 1 
r 

various corrections officials and personnel. In his complaint, 

Harris contended that his constitutional rights were violated in 

numerous ways when, among other things, he was compelled to attend 

allegedly voluntary educational programs, and subjected to a loss 

of class level status and punished in other ways when he refused. 

On appeal, he essentially quarrels with the authorities, 

reasoning, and information relied upon by the district court. We 

disagree. The district court was entirely correct in its analysis 

and disposition. 

Because Harris has failed to make a rational argument on the 

law and facts supporting his claims, Coppedge v. United States, 

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

we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The appeal is 

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7037 Document: 010110132062 Date Filed: 08/14/1991 Page: 2