Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06063/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06063-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

' FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circu:r 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 19 1990 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-6061 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-0171-T) 

MARK DENHAM; and UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

----------------------------------------) ) 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF ) 

OKLAHOMA; and T. BUCKNER, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

----------------------------------------) ) 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MARK DENHAM, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

----------------------------------------) 

No. 90-6062 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-0172-T) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

No. 90-6063 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-0173-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

Appellate Case: 90-6063 Document: 010110042226 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 1 
LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-6064 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-0174-T) 

TERESA BLACK; TIMOTHY D. LEONARD; and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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. 

Lin Edward Davis, Sr. appeals from the order of the district 

court dismissing numerous civil rights and habeas petitions as 

"repetitive, harassing, and frivolous." The district court 

further ordered that Davis's right to file future in forma 

pauperis actions is conditioned as follows: 

(1) he must clearly demonstrate in the in forma pauperis 

affidavit that any new action is commenced in good 

faith, is not harassing or frivolous; (2) he must 

include in every initial pleading a list of every 

previous action filed and certify that new claims 

advanced have never been raised before, and, (3) he is 

* 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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6063 Document: 010110042226 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 2 
\ 

precluded from filing any further in forma pauperis 

actions against any individual or other entity that 

participated in the prosecution or defense of [Davis's 

criminal conviction] pending any post-judgment appellate 

review. 

Davis contends that the district court dismissed his actions 

without hearing, reading or looking at the complaints based solely 

on the fact that he had previously filed numerous in forma 

pauperis actions. We affirm. 

In reaching its decision to dismiss Davis's complaints as 

"repetititve, harassing, and frivolous," the district court 

carefully canvassed both Davis's current complaints and his prior 

in forma pauperis actions. The district court found that Davis 

had previously filed seven in forma pauperis actions relating to 

his conviction. These actions challenged: 

(1) 

( 2 ) 

( 3 ) 

( 4 ) 

( 5 ) 

( 6 ) 

( 7 ) 

section 1983 action seeking monetary relief due to jail 

conditions in the Oklahoma county jail [CIV 89-2218-T]; 

section 1983 action against trial counsel for purported 

ineffective assistance of counsel [CIV 89-2227-T]; 

section 1983 action seeking monetary damages against a 

prosecution witnesses [CIV 90-20-T]; 

section 1983 defamation action against FBI Agent Denham 

[CIV 90-22-T]; 

section 1983 action against an examining physician for 

failure to file a truthful report [CIV 90-99-T]; 

section 1983 action against the assistant U.S. attorney 

who tried the case [CIV 90-132-T]; 

section 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of 

counsel, trial errors, perjured testimony, mental 

incompetency to stand trial, and other violations [CR 

89-224-T]. 

The new in forma pauperis actions are as follows: 

(1) 

( 2 ) 

( 3 ) 

section 1983 action against FBI Agent Denham, 

claiming discriminatory and perjurious grand jury 

testimony [CIV 90-0171-T]; 

challenge to Oklahoma county jail conditions [CIV 

90-0172-T]; 

section 1983 punitive damges defamation claim against FBI 

Agent Denham [CIV 90-0173-T]; 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6063 Document: 010110042226 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 3 
(4) section 1983 action for damages against the assistant 

U.S. attorney and U.S. attorney for their response to 

Davis's section 2255 motion [CIV 90-0174-T]. 

We review the district court's order conditioning Davis' 

right to proceed in forma pauperis for abuse of discretion. 

Tripati Y.!.. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1989). The 

district court has not abused its discretion. Davis has shown 

that he intends to sue everyone connected with his conviction and 

incarceration. Such an intent, when coupled with the repetitive 

and often dubious nature of Davis' claims, clearly passes beyond 

mere assertion of his rights and rises to the level of harassment. 

See id. at 353. The district court was justified in conditioning 

Davis' in forma pauperis rights. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing 

the conditions. Every condition imposed has received some prior 

approval from this court,~ id. at 353-54. Moreover, in total, 

we find that the conditions are narrowly tailored to correct the 

perceived abuse in Davis' in forma pauperis conduct and to prevent 

abuse of the judicial process. The district court did not err in 

imposing these conditions. 

We now turn to the four IFP complaints that the district 

court dismissed. Three of these cases, nos. CIV 90-0171-T 

(perjured testimony claim against Denham), CIV 90-0172-T (jail 

conditions), and CIV 90-0173-T (defamation claim against Denham), 

are clearly repetititve and are closely related, if not 

substantially identical, to cases nos. CIV 89-2218-T (jail 

conditions), CIV 90-22-T (defamation claim against Denham), and 

CIV 90-132-T (against assistant U.S. attorney). Dismissal of 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6063 Document: 010110042226 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 4 
these actions was thus proper. As to the fourth action, CIV -90-

0174-T, it appears from the face of the complaint that the U.S. 

attorney and assistant U.S. attorney are entitled to absolute 

immunity for performance of their prosecutorial duties. The 

district court did not err in dismissing Davis's in forma pauperis 

claims. 

Davis's motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED. We 

WAIVE the fees and AFFIRM in all four appeals. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6063 Document: 010110042226 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 5