Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05173/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05173-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI.LED 

Uoitecl States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DEC 2 7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBERT JOSEPH ZANI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STANLEY GLANZ; S.O. WOODS, Jr.; 

TROY FOX; CARL WHITE; and 

PERSONS UNKNOWN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5173 

(D. C. No. 90-C-570-B) 

( N • D. Ok 1 a • ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* 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: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 1 
Mr. Zani appeals the decision of the district .court that held 

Mr. Zani's pro se complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d). We affirm. 

Mr. Zani was convicted of murder in Texas and is incarcerated 

within the Texas Department of Corrections. Mr. Zani filed this 

complaint in the Northern District of Oklahoma. One of the 

defendants, Mr. Glanz, is alleged to be the sheriff of Tulsa 

County, Oklahoma. The remaining defendants are residents of Texas 

and are alleged to be connected with the Texas Department of 

Corrections and the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole. 

The district court correctly described the complaint as "a 

vague, rambling tale of prisoner litigation and alleged 

retaliation." After reviewing the complaint, the district court 

held that the numerous allegations against Mr. Glanz failed to 

support violations of federal rights and further held that the 

allegations concerning the remaining defendants were "nothing more 

than vague, conclusory finger pointing, lacking the requisite 

specificity" and dismissed the complaint holding it to be 

frivolous under Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1990). 

In his prose appeal to this court, Mr. Zani rails against 

his conviction in Texas, complains that the district court did not 

instruct him to amend his complaint, and informs us of his ·other 

similar pending litigation. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 2 
·• Having carefully reviewed the record on appeal, we are in 

agreement with the district judge. We therefore AFFIRM the order 

of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth 

in its Order of July 17, 1990, a copy of which is attached. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 3 
• 

• 

i.. -=- - -- .. 

IN THE UNITED SfATES DISfRICT COURT FOR THE 

.NORTIIBRN DISfRICT OF OKLAHOMA F I L E Dn.M' 

ROBERT JOSEPH ZANI ) JUL 17 19SQ /i' ' 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STANLEY GLANZ, et al 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

90-C-0570-B 

Jack C. Silver, Clerk 

U.S. O\STRlCi COURT 

/ 

United Sta~~s. Oistr\ct Court ) SS 

Northern Drstnct of Oklah011\a ) 

I hereby certify that the foregoing 

is a true cepy of the ori&inal on file 

in this tourt· ·' -' 

Jack C. Silver, Clerk _ 

.. "By /tO) uo:,fl+cif . Deputy (/ 

Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in fonna pauperis was granted and the Complaint was 

filed. The action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

It is now to be tested under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 191S(d). If it is 

found to be obviously without merit, it is subject to summary dismissal. Henriksen v. 

Bentley, 644 F.2d 852, 853 (10th Cir. 1981). The test to be applied is whether or not the 

movant can make a rational argument on the law or the facts to support the claim. Van 

Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1434 (10th Cir.-1986). Applying the test to Plaintiff's 

clafrns, L'le Court finds that the instant action should be dismissed as obviously without 

merit for the following reasons. 

Plaintiff is a prisoner convicted of murder in Texas and incarcerated within the 

" 

Texas Department of Corrections. He brings this action against the Tulsa County Sheriff 

(Stanley Glanz), and three Texas state officials. In support of his action, he presents a 

vague, rambling tale of prisoner litigation and alleged retaliation. 

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 4 
• 

• 

--, A . i 

-· ·/ J / 

As to defendant Glanz, Plaintiff alleges Glanz, 

"revived a wrongful 1986 detainer (and obtained from the Tulsa Co. Clerk, 

in 1990, a copy of a judgment, but not a final judgment, of course) and sent 

those documents to [co-defendant] Woods, so that: 1) the TBPP and the TDC 

would have some "extra ammunition" assuming they had to go to court 

against plaintiff; 2) to show plaintiff how interstate retaliatory conspiracies 

can work, unhindered; 3) to smear plaintiff; 4) to perpetrate a fraud; [and] 

5) to show plaintiff how co-conspirators and their minions can use/abuse 

court records, falsely, for their own ends." 

These five claims do not state violations of federal rights. At best, the allegations may · 

support state tort claims against Glanz. However, a state tort claim will not support 

federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. §1983.1 Therefore, the claims against defendant 

Glanz are totally without merit and will be dismissed. 

As to the remaining Texas state defendants, the proper venue would be in a federal 

district in Texas, rather than Oklahoma. 

Nevertheless, in view of the lack of merit of plaintiffs claims against these remaining 

defendants, justice is better served by dismissing the case now, rather than transferring the 

case to another court where a second review of the complaint would have to be 

undertaken. 

Defendant S. 0 . Woods, Jr. is the chairman of the state classification committee for 

the Texas Department of Corrections, claims Plaintiff. Defendant Troy Fox is a Parole 

Commissioner of the Texas Board of Pardon and Parole, claims Plaintiff. Defendant Carl 

White, according to Plaintiff, is an assistant warden at the "Michael Unit". Each is alleged 

1 It is noted that a denial of a prisoner's rights given 

under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, could be actionable 

under §1983 (Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981), however, that is 

not the type of claim presented here. 

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 5 
• 

• to have acted under color of state law. 

According to the Complaint, the defendants, "conspired aga_inst plaintiff, all acts 

related herein (and similar type acts)were done in pursuance of that conspiracy, the ends 

of which have not yet been attained, but were described in other federal court documents 

prior to defendants' misdeeds." Plaintiff then goes on to describe, in equally vague terms, 

his fight against the conspirators. He describes the conspiratorial retaliation as beginning 

with his appeal of his federal habeas corpus case. After his appeal, he tells of transfers, 

lockdowns, seizures of legal documents, "and other retaliatory measures taken on a daily 

basis." He does not identify the individuals who have so acted. 

He also describes an incident on May 9, 1990, when he was questioned outside the 

offices of defendant Fox. The Complaint alleges that Fox "repeatedly attempted to 

interrogate plaintiff about his 'guilt' in the case and implying that.if plaintiff would simply 

lie and make a false confession, and drop litigation that TBPP might be able to 'help."' 

In sum his allegations against the remaining Texas defendants are nothing more 

than vague, conclusory finger-pointing, lacking the requisite specificity of actual wrongful 

deeds demonstrating defendants' involvement, and omitting a statement of specific rights 

these defendants abridged. 

In a similar case, Reed v. Dunham, 893 F.2d 285 (10th Cir. 1990), the Tenth 

Circuit held that dismissal under §1915(d) is the proper procedure where, "allegations, by 

which [plaintiffs] attempt to substantiate a general discriminatory conspiracy claim, are 

unfocused, conclusory, and hopelessly deficient on the fundamental elements of agreement 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 6 
·- - --- ~ 

.. I • . . I ·. 

and concerted action." This court agrees. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered, that Plaintiffs action against all defendants, is 

hereby, DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED THIS J.J_ day of __ __,_---........,.. __ _,, 1990. 

THOMAS R. BRETT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-5173 Document: 010110097382 Date Filed: 12/27/1990 Page: 7