Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03116/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03116-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LLD 

United States Ciourt of Appeale Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 21 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CARROLL RICHARD OLSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE'S OFFICE, Denver, ) 

Colorado; HAROLD COLEMAN, Sheriff, ) 

Bourbon County, Kansas; CHANUTE ) 

PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION, Chanute, ) 

Kansas; REDMOND & REDMOND, Attorneys at) 

Law, Wichita, Kansas; UNITED STATES ) 

MARSHALS SERVICE; KENT PEKAREK, U.S. ) 

Marshal, Topeka, Kansas, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3116 

(D.C. No. 92-CV-3094) 

(D. Kan .) 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L. Russell, District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

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. 

* 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: 92-3116 Document: 010110212824 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Carroll Richard Olson appeals the district court's dismissal 

of his prose civil rights complaint. Olson complained that 

defendants, acting under color of state law, violated his civil 

rights when they seized 159 acres of his property, as well as his 

personal records, tools, and other items of personal property. 

Defendants seized the property after Olson filed bankruptcy. 

Olson claims that his farm was exempt from the bankruptcy estate 

under the Kansas homestead exemption. See Kan. Stat. Ann. 

§ 60-2301. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 

affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by the district 

court. 

On appeal Olson claims defendants conspired to obtain favors 

from the bankruptcy court, the federal district court, and all 

state courts, in proceedings related to the seizure of this 

property and, further, conspired 

attacks the partiality of the 

to ruin his life. He 

district court judge. 

also 

Such 

exaggerated and unsupported claims are not credible and will not 

be entertained by this court. 

Olson states in his brief that the bankruptcy court denied 

him the exemptions he now seeks. He offers no facts explaining 

the details of the bankruptcy court's decision. In conclusory 

fashion, he alleges that the seizure of his property was illegal, 

and that everyone involved in the allegedly illegal seizure 

violated his constitutional rights. Under these circumstances, we 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3116 Document: 010110212824 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 2 
affirm the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his complaint 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d ). 

Olson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the United States District Court for the District 

of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3116 Document: 010110212824 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3116 Document: 010110212824 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 4