Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03148/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03148-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unilal St:~tt!~u1 A,p~ls 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROLLY 0. KI NNELL, 

Pla i ntiff-Appellant, 

v. 

SGT. CONNALLY; CHIN, CO II; 

FINNLEY, JR., CO II, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OCT O 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3148 

(D.C. No. 86-CV-3307) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

Mr. Kinnell, a state inmate, commenced a prose suit seeking 

damages. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment and 

* 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: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Kinnell appeals prose. 

Mr. Kinnell alleged in his complaint he was homosexually 

assaulted by two of the defendants who are prison guards during a 

cell search and that certain papers were removed from his cell and 

lost. Defendants filed a Martinez report and certain other 

evidentiary matters establishing these acts did not occur. The 

trial court, in a commendably thorough Memorandum and Order, 

details the evidentiary material submitted by Defendants, found 

they were uncontroverted, and granted Defendants' motions for 

summary judgment. The trial court also found Mr. Kinnell had 

filed twenty-five separate legal actions in federal courts since 

1986, most of them dismissed as frivolous. Consequently, the 

trial court placed restrictions on Mr. Kinnell's future filings, 

limiting him to two civil rights law suits per year. 

Mr. Kinnell appeals asserting "no law used by Court and shown 

to be clearly erroneous." 

Mr. Kinnell has requested permission to appeal in forma 

pauperis. In order for Mr. Kinnell to proceed in forma pauperis 

there must be "a rational argument on the law or facts" in support 

of the issues raised on appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 

U.S. 438, 448 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 

1962). 

In this case before us Mr. Kinnell has failed to meet this 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 2 
minimal burden. We give to Mr. Kinnell the same benefits afforded 

to a prose appellant. The record on appeal is nearly one foot 

thick and we have reviewed it. Mr. Kinnell has not made and 

indeed cannot make any rational or reasoned argument that the 

decision of the trial court was erroneous. We attach hereto a 

copy of the trial court's Memorandum and Order. 

Mr. Kinnell is denied permission to proceed in forma pauperis 

even though he has made a showing that he is financially unable to 

pay the costs and fees. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 3 
ROLLY 0 . 

v s. 

SERGEANT 

,-'; :: :) 'J s :·, r-·~ - ,~ ., n , \ : ~ ~ . • ) I i ' I ,_, j .J .) u RT r . c: .-: ,'T -. - '.< '- ; SA S 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ,.?R .J 12 i.:: rH 'SJ 

KINNELL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) 

) 

CONNALLY, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

i"' .:..: ' 

CY 1 \ -- ~ ,/' 

\ I : I. Irr •.:::UfY :>-::' ./'' ·• , . ;;) , 

Case No. 86-3307 

ENTERED ON THE rvv,.., 

DA TE: , · .,._ · ~ · """""'"ET 

This is a prose civil rights action which is now before the 

court following a pretrial conference before John c. Tillotson, 

United States Magistrate. The pretrial order submitted by the 

magistrate was reviewed, adopted and signed by the court on January 

9, 1991. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment, and the plaintiff Kinnell has filed various responses to 

the pretrial order and defendants' motion. 

Kinnell has also filed a "Notice for Three Judge Court 

Hearing Forthwith" (0kt. 76), and has attempted to "appeal" from 

the pretrial order. (Dkt. 77). In addition he has filed a paper 

entitled "Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. II 

(0kt. 81). In this motion he complains of an "order that denied 

(him) to have his cause of action under Jurisdiction 28 USC 2283 

for removal of State Civil Actions" and attaches to this a copy of 

the pretrial order. He states that the court is denying his rights 

to equal protection and due process, and the right of access to the 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 4 
court. He has also filed papers in this case entitled "Plaintiff's 

Offer for Full Settlement Under Civ. Rules 68, Rule 81 (c) and 

Evidence Rules" (Dkt. 75). In this filing, he complains about "the 

deliberate obstruction of justice, to wit: withholding of evidence 

dated August 3, 1990; withheld from trial proceedings on August 16, 

1990, causing cruel and unusual false imprisonment knowingly!". 

Attempts to appeal are, of course, inappropriate at this time and 

the issues to be addressed in this case are solely those set out 

in the pretrial order. 

This is a conditions of confinement case arising from 

Kinnell's incarceration in the Kansas state Penitentiary at 

Lansing, Kansas. He alleges that on or about December 7 and 8, 

1986, he was homosexually assaulted by the defendants, Sergeant 

Connally and Officer Finney during a cell search. He claims that 

the assault consisted of squeezing his genitalia during a "pat 

down" search after Kinnell had spit in the face of Officer 

Connally. 

Kinnell also claims that his legal papers were removed from 

his cell, along with other personal property and that these items 

were lost. He also alleges that the search and frisk deprived him 

of rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 

that the frisk constituted cruel and unusual punishment in 

violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and that due to 

the loss of his legal papers, his right to access to the court was 

denied in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 5 
Kinnell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages of 

$150 for lost property, $2500 for lost legal papers, and $500 in 

attorney's fees. 

In response, defendants deny the charges made by Kinnell; they 

allege that the claims are frivolous, that defendants are entitled 

to the defense of good faith qualified immunity, and that Kinnell's 

claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. 

At the pretrial conference it was agreed that the 

institutional file including medical records, and the Martinez 

report filed with defendants' answer, could be received in evidence 

without additional foundation. It was also stipulated that 

Kinnell' s cell was searched on December 8, 1986, by Officers 

Finney, Chinn and Connally, that plaintiff was patted down by 

Connally, and that defendants were acting in their official 

capacity. 1 

In the motion for summary judgment, defendants contend that 

there are no disputed issues of any material fact and that they are 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

A review of the complaint, the answer, the accompanying 

Martinez report, and affidavits attached to that report discloses 

the following facts: 

1 Officer Freddie Finley was served as a defendant in this 

action, but while he was an employee of KSP, he had no connection 

with plaintiff. Officer D. w. Finney, however, did assist in the 

search of plaintiff's cell and he was present when Kinnell was 

frisked by Sgt. Connally. (Ex. 2, Martinez report). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 6 
Kinnell is an inmate committed to the custody of the Secretary 

of Corrections for the State of Kansas, and at all times relevant 

was confined at the Lansing Correctional Facility in this state. 

Defendant Sgt. Connally was an employee of the Department of 

Corrections assigned to the facility; Defendant Adrian Chinn, 

likewise an employee, was acting as a Corrections Officer II at 

Lansing, and Defendant Finney is an employee of the department and 

was employed as a corrections officer at Lansing during the 

relevant time period. 

On December 7, 1986, Kinnell was charged with insubordination 

or disrespect and battery when he told Officer Chinn "Fuck you what 

are you funny. 

the officer. 

You like looking at peoples dicks," and spit upon 

Kinnell pleaded guilty to insubordination or 

disrespect, and the charge of battery was dismissed. 

On December a, Kinnell was charged with disobeying an order 

and battery when he refused to remove his blue jeans from his 

shower bag and spit in Officer Kevin Young's face. 

Later that day, a random cell search was conducted on 

Kinnell 's cell. It is a practice of the cell house officers to 

randomly search a few cells every other day. In conducting the 

search, Kinnell was ordered to back up to front of the cell so that 

his hands could be cuffed behind his back. once handcuffed, he was 

released from the cell on to a "run" in front of the cell, where 

he was frisked by Sgt. Connally. The cell search was conducted by 

Officers Chinn and Finney, while Kinnell remained outside the cell 

with the sergeant. During the search of the cell, newspapers and 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 7 
magazines addressed to other inmates were removed along with 

plastic flatware, tubes of jelly, and salt and pepper. No paper 

other than the newspapers and magazines was removed from the cell 

and no postage stamps were taken. 

if extra sheets or blankets are 

During a shakedown of a cell, 

discovered in excess of the 

inmate's quota, they are returned to the laundry. Not all of 

Kinnell's sheets and blankets were removed from the cell. (Exs.2, 

7, Martinez report, Affidavits of Adrian Chinn and D. W. Finney). 

Defendant Connally has supplied the court with his affidavit 

regarding the search. Kinnell was wearing pants and a shirt when 

he was searched and Connally states that the search was entirely 

proper, that it was made to determine if Kinnell had anything 

hidden in his clothes, and that he did not grab, squeeze or 

otherwise fondle Kinnell's private parts. The affidavits of the 

other officers present are similar in nature. 

Kinnell continuously called Connally and 

homosexuals and faggots. 

During the search, 

the other officers 

Kinnell contends that he was denied a meal by Sgt. Connally 

on December 11, 1986. By affidavit, Connally has denied that he 

did so, and is supported by a written log kept on prisoners in 

segregation which shows that Kinnell was given a meal during Sgt. 

Connally's shift. (Martinez report. Ex. 8). Even if Kinnell 

missed a meal, such a claim is frivolous and would not be evidence 

of a violation of a constitutional right. 

While the court should construe the complaint in a liberal 

manner, Kinnell is not relieved of the burden of showing evidence, 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 8 
beyond the pleadings, that there are triable issues of fact. The 

uncontroverted facts supplied by affidavits and prison documents, 

concerning the frisk, the search of the cell and the removal of 

trash and contraband, establish that the officers were acting in 

good faith, and in accordance with correctional standards 

maintained by the institution. Here, Kinnell's claims are simply 

conclusional allegations, insufficient to establish a constitutional violation. 

Kinnell's allegations are particularly suspect when viewed in 

the light of his history of litigation in federal and state courts. 

At the request of the court, the magistrate conducted an 

investigation into prior complaints filed by Kinnell, and has made 

his report, which appears in the pretrial order. Since 1986, 

Kinnell has filed 25 separate legal actions in the federal courts, 

most of which have been dismissed as frivolous. In most of these, 

Kinnell has charged that the various defendants are motivated by 

perverted sexual interests, and among those he has accused are 

custodial personnel, medical providers, administrative officers, 

court personnel and judges. Similar malicious allegations continue 

to be made in recent communications received from Kinnell by this 

Court. 2 

The magistrate reviewed sixteen of the cases filed by Kinnell 

since 1987. One of those is still pending, and the other fifteen 

2 In Kinnell's Response, filed February 8, 1991, he complains 

of "racist state officials", "homosexual abuse by all state 

Agents", claims that the Governor of this state is a "female 

impersonator", that "freaks" run things in this state, and slanders 

the state's attorney. 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 9 
have been dismissed as frivolous or conclusional. Many of these 

cases have been dismissed several times because of various motions 

to amend and motions made by Kinnell after the initial dismissal. 

Appeals from these cases have been dismissed as frivolous. A 

synopsis of the cases prepared by the magistrate is adopted by the 

court, and attached to this memorandum and order as Appendix A. 

In addition to these cases, the magistrate took judicial 

notice that Kinnell, during the same time period, has filed actions 

alleging similar "civil rights" violations by state officials in 

the District Court of Leavenworth County, Kansas. Seven such cases 

are now pending there, all filed since January 1, 1990. These 

actions contain similar allegations about sexually perverted 

custodial, medical, administrative and judicial officials. 

Kinnell' s abuse of the judicial system is clear, and it cannot 

and will not be tolerated. Because of this abuse, Kinnell's right 

of access to this court will be limited in the following manner: 

1. Kinnell 's complaints alleging violations of his civil 

rights shall be limited to two filings per calendar year. 

2. Kinnell must submit an application to file any complaint 

to be reviewed by the court. In this application, Kinnell must 

certify, under oath, that his claims are new and not similar to 

those of any other past or pending complaint. 

3. Kinnell 's application shall further certify the names and 

case numbers of all pending litigation, whether in state or federal 

courts. 

7 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 10 
4. Kinnell's application to file any complaint shall be in 

separately numbered, legibly written paragraphs. 

5. In this application, Kinnell shall state the names of all 

witnesses to the alleged violation of civil rights. 

6. The limitation on Kinnell's filing of complaints shall 

be excused only when he certifies, under oath, that his allegations 

of wrongs constitute a threat of immediate physical harm to him. 

In accordance with the foregoing findings, 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment be, 

and it is hereby SUSTAINED, and this case is DISMISSED; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's access to this court 

be limited in the above described manner because of his abuse of 

the processes of this court. 

SO ORDERED, this _z_ day 1991. 

8 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 11 
APPENDIX A 

U. s. Magistrate Kinnell files -

87-3058 - filed 3/5/87; dismissed 4/21/87; grounds: 1) Plaintiff 

repeatedly passed over for parole - 2) Forced to wear shorts going 

to and from shower; disposition: dismissed as frivolous 

87-3130 - filed 5/8/87; dismissed 6/2/87; grounds: 1) Plaintiff 

has to shower in his shorts - 2) Plaintiff improperly detained in 

prison - 3) Plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. violated because held beyond the term of his sentence and 

incarcerated because he protected his own civil rights; decision: 

1) Frivolous - 2) Dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies 

- 3) Dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. 

87-3148 - filed 5/22/87; dismissed 6/2/87; claim: motion for 

relief from adverse judgments in Cases 79-3023, 82-3238, 85-3180, 

85-3259 and 86-3109. Held motion for relief from judgment is not 

a separate cause of action. 

87-3157 filed 6/1/87; dismissed 6/30/87; claim: first 

citizenship claim for false advertising, dismissed as frivolous 

87-3196 - filed 7/2/87; dismissed 8/31/87; grounds: Petition for 

writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to file criminal charges 

against Judges Saffels and O'Connor; held: dismissed for failure 

of the government to join in the prosecution of the complaint. 

87-3365 - filed 12/18/87 (Kinnell v. Steve Davies); grounds: 

Martinez report: 12/2/87 plaintiff received a disciplinary report 

by Officer Watson for plaintiff throwing a handful of Jello at the 

officer. In retrieving lunch trays, Officer Watson was hit by 

mashed potatoes by the inmate, as well as inmate urinating upon the 

officer's uniform. A disciplinary report was completed the same 

day alleging insubordination, disrespect, battery, interference 

with duties and improper use of food. Plaintiff was moved to A&T 

following the incident and received a copy of the disciplinary 

report the same day. The disciplinary report was served upon 

plaintiff at least within 24 hours of its occurrence. 

Enroute to segregration, plaintiff became disruptive and had 

to be physically subdued. A further incident report was filed. 

Plaintiff could not be medically treated because he was too 

agitated to receive medical treatment. After being p~ced in 

' 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 12 
segregation, plaintiff was kept in a strip cell for 24 hours and 

received clothing and bedding the next day. Held the complaint and 

Martinez report evidence a frivolous complaint. 

Plaintiff does not appeal but files three successive motions 

for relief from judgment and appeals the third, which appeal is 

then dismissed by the Tenth Circuit June 28, 1990. 

89-3103 - filed 3/22/89; dismissed 5/9/89; 

requests an injunction against defendant 

enjoining the credit card protection agency 

alleging that it interferes with plaintiff's 

with the company. Held frivolous. 

grounds: Plaintiff 

Robert Stephan for 

from doing business, 

right to do business 

89-3 218-0 - filed 6 / 8 / 89; grounds: Plaintiff alleges that the 

defendant, United States District Court, has violated his · constitutional rights and caused his illegal confinement. Held 

dismissed as frivolous and malicious. Further held - appeal 

dismissed as frivolous 12/14/89. 

89-3138-S - defendants: Karla Berskin, Brett Peterson, Ray 

Roberts, Dan Doyle, Bill Lucas, Ray Endell and Ray Belden; filed 

4/17/89; dismissed 5/3/89; grounds: 1) Deliberate indifference 

to First and Fourteenth Amendments and forceable detention of 

personal property and credit card - 2) books, tapes, training 

courses and law books destroyed - 3) overcrowding f creed on 

plaintiff by homosexual guards and lesbian mental heal th personnel. 

Held 1) allegations of complaint are conclusory, containing no 

facts to support the alleged constitutional violations - 2) many 

of same claims dismissed and, therefor, res judicata by Kinnell v. 

Stephan, 88-3278; Kinnell v. Maschner, 86-3109. Further held, 

appeal dismissed as frivolous 2/8/90. 

89-3111-S - filed 3/28/89, case pending. Grounds - 1) Plaintiff 

alleges deprivation of civil rights because he has been denied his 

personal property and the use of a credit card - 2) Mental health 

personnel abusing confidential information 3) KSP staff 

tampering with incoming legal mail - 4) All law books held since 

1983 - 5) Dept. of Corrections relying upon illegally altered 

versions of K.S.A. in determining maximum sentences 6) 

Deliberate overcrowding - 7) Prison staff with homosexuals and 

lesbians - 8) Plaintiff requests relief in the form of release 

from prison. Note: motion to strike plaintiff's pleadings or for 

t . I . 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 13 
sanctions for failure to comply with court orders is pending as 

Doc. 15. 

90-3024-R - filed 1/30/90; grounds - 1) Defendants, Kansas Parole 

Board, Robert Stephan, Attorney General, Steve Davies, Dept. of 

Corrections and Ray Roberts, KSP Director, unconstitutionally 

violated plaintiff's rights by disallowing good time credit 

pursuant to his October 1977 sentence by the use of a 1980 statute, 

constituting false imprisonment, illegal rehabilitation and 

corporal punishment 2) Illegal false imprisonment 3) 

custodial Officer Barkley caused theft of personal property or loss 

of personal property - 3) Conditional release date of April 1988 

changed to April 1990 and Parole Board refused to grant hearing; 

plaintiff held in mental health facility. Held allegations vague 

and conclusory, do not recite facts or present an arguable legal 

basis for imposing any liability. Dismissed as frivolous 2/16/90. 

90-3015-S filed 1/18/90; dismissed 1/23/90; grounds: 1) 

Defendants Wardlow and Brinkman as correctional officers causing 

false imprisonment in segregation by causing plaintiff to submit 

to a urine test while on cold medication - 2) Defendant Ray 

Roberts permits homosexual officers to tamper with legal mail - 3) 

Defendant Wardlow caused plaintiff to be placed in segregation 

after leaving disciplinary hearing. Held allegations vague and 

conclusory without any statement of facts sufficient to state a 

constitutional claim. Claim is frivolous. 

88-3047-S - filed 2/3/88; grounds: Plaintiff alleges defendant 

Steve Davies has illegally confiscated legal materials, personal 

cosmetics and religious books I etc. Held plaintiff makes no 

allegation that he has attempted to resolve his dispute through 

administrative procedures and, accordingly, petition dismissed 

(frivolous?, failure to exhaust?). · 

88-3087-S - filed 3/9/88; dismissed 3/31/88; grounds: Plaintiff 

alleges State of Kansas, Bourbon County District court, Kansas 

Appellate Courts, Dept. of Corrections and Kansas Parole Board 

should be enjoined from enforcing 1977 conviction, which denied due 

process, equal protection, suppressed freedom of expression to 

protect plaintiff against attack and denied plaintiff's right of 

assistance to counsel 2) Subjected to cruel and unusual 

punishment at KSP in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Held 1) allegations of due process, equal protection, denial of 

right to assistance of counsel, request habeas relief l and no 

: 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 14 
showing of exhaustion of state remedies is pled. Counts dismissed 

- 2} 1984 claim of homosexual attack barred by statute of 

limitations (2 years). Further held appeal dismissed as frivolous 

2/1/90. 

88-3278-S - filed 8/1/88; dismissed 11/28/88; grounds: Plaintiff 

alleges defendants Stephan, Bourbon District Court, Leon Patton, 

u. s. Attorney, Steve Davies, Dept. of Corrections and Leavenworth 

County District Court variously violated his rights in the 

following particulars: 1) 1977 conviction violated constitutional 

rights - 2) detained in a red necked overcrowded and homosexual 

prison - 3) continuing conspiracy among defendants to deny due 

process and equal protection and, therefore, amounts to cruel and 

unusual punishment - 4} Director of Prisons allows racism and 

homosexuality - 5} Dept. of Corrections denies due process - 6} 

Leavenworth County conspires with state agents to deprive 

constitutional rights. Held all plaintiff's allegations are merely · conclusory and no statements of material fact are made to support 

the alleged violations. Complaint dismissed as frivolous. Further 

held multiple motions to set aside denied. Further held appeal 

dismissed as frivolous 2/2/90. 

88-3279-S - filed 8/1/88; dismissed 9/21/88; grounds: 1) Habeas 

corpus relief for denial of assistance of counsel at trial - 2) 

Parole eligibility statute altered without explanation in violation 

of vested rights - 3) Denied due process by prior rulings of this 

Court. Held 1) This Court determined 3/24/81 that petitioner had 

not been denied effective assistance of counsel - 3) That 

plaintiff is denied due process of law by the Court's rulings does 

not state a claim for habeas relief under 28 u.s.c. §2254 - 2} 

After granting plaintiff additional time to show cause why his 

claim No. 2 should not be dismissed, the Court dismissed the same 

11/29/88. The petitioner was convicted 10/6/77. Plaintiff's 

claims were previously raised and he fails to show any exceptional 

circumstances justifying the assertion of additional grounds of 

error and does not allege any retroactive change in the law, newly 

discovered evidence or any other explanation. Plaintiff's attack 

on his conviction constitutes an abuse of process and is, 

therefore, dismissed. Further held 12 / 2 O / 88 that petitioner's 

allegation of conspiracy by Judge Saffels does not state a claim 

and motion to set aside is denied. Further held 6/5/89 that Judge 

Saffels allegedly guilty of criminal obstruction of justice and 

withholding evidence from prose petitioner is frivolous and motion 

to amend denied. Further held two subsequent motions denied as 

frivolous. Further held appeal denied as frivolous 2/1/90. 

-~ 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 15 
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case &I 

~nitea ~±ates ~istrict Olourt ----------------DISTRICT OF ---=K:..:..:A=N=S.c....:A..c:.S __________ _ 

ROLLY O. KINNELL, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

SERGEANT CONNALLY, et al., 

CASE NUMBER: 86- 330? 

Defendants. 

0 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury_ The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

g Decision by Court. This action came tl!lltiemtkaotgcbefore the Court. -me~~Jl~~~t~U{~Kee~nd a 

decision has been rendered . 

'IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants' motion for 

summary judgment is hereby sustained. Plaintiff 

takes nothing, and the action is dismissed on the 

merits; 

FILED 

'PR - ~ 1991 

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's access to the 

court be limited because of his abuse of the 

processes of this court. 

R~;~}-

Date 

ENTERED ON THE DOCKET: April 3, 1991 

April 3, J99J BALPB r. Def.QACB 

Clerk 

;r· . (~ 

. f' • 

I . / / 

(By)DeputyC/erk r 

) fl J / 

Appellate Case: 91-3148 Document: 010110090783 Date Filed: 10/08/1991 Page: 16