Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03252/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03252-0/pdf.json

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

---

tnn:TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TBJrl"il CIRCUIT 

MICHAEL M. ROBY, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

. FILED 

Uruted Srara u,urr of A~ 

Tenth Circuit 

F'£B 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 90-3252 

v. ) 

) 

COURTLAND Q. CLOTFELTER; CHAMBER ) 

OF COMMERCE OF WICHITA, . ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

(D. Kansas) 

(D.C. No. 90-3250-S) 

ORDER llD JODGIIBft* 

Before ANDERSOR, 'l'ACBA, and BRORBY, 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. 

Michael M. Roby, a pro~ inmate at the Lansing Correctional 

Facility in Lansing, Kansas, appeals the district court's 

dismissal of his civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 

u.s.c. S 1983. In that action, Roby sued Courtland Q. Clotfelter, 

* 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: 90-3252 Document: 010110098454 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 1 
, 

an attorney who declined to represent him in an action concerning 

certain property in Wichita, Kansas in which Roby claimed to have 

an interest, the Wichita Chamber of Commerce, and unnamed 

defendants Roby alleges may illegally own property in Wichita. 

The district court, expressly relying on 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d), 

dismissed the action for failure to state a claim that could be 

adjudicated pursuant to 42 u.s.c. S 1983. 

Any action predicated on 42 u.s.c. S 1983 must meet two 

essential requirements. First, the conduct complained of must be 

"committed by a person acting under color of state law." Parratt 

v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), rev'd on other grounds, 

Daniels v. Willia.ms, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). And second, the conduct 

must deprive "a person of rights, privileges, or immunities 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Id. 

After carefully reviewing Roby's rambling, largely incoherent and 

incomprehensible brief as well as all other parts of the record 

relevant to his case, we conclude that it is impossible to 

ascertain any state action or any specific constitutional or 

statutory deprivation that would support a S 1983 action. 

In addition, a close review of the record reveals that, no 

matter how creatively Roby's allegations are construed, they fail 

to embody "an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 32-; 109 s.ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). 

Because Roby has "embrace[d] not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation", id., we conclude 

that his appeal is frivolous within the meaning of 28 u.s.c. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3252 Document: 010110098454 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 2 
S 1915(d). We, therefore, deny Roby's motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and dismiss his appeal. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3252 Document: 010110098454 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 3