Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03315/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03315-0/pdf.json

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

---

., ---

JOHN 

v. 

LC 

u · ilEO 

nited Srare; Courr of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

H. TOWNSLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

F; and KR D c, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 2 ~ 19 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3315 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3371) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BRORBY, 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. 

Plaintiff-appellant John Townsley appeals a district court 

order dismissing his suit brought under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. On 

appeal, Townsley argues his section 1983 action is not frivolous. 

We exercise jurisdiction and affirm. 

In his prose complaint and appellate brief, Townsley alleges 

slander, libel, perjury, invasion of privacy, and false 

* 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: 90-3315 Document: 010110118032 Date Filed: 05/29/1991 Page: 1 
imprisonment arising from the official handling of a prior 

complaint, Townsley Y...!.. KSP, No. 90-CV-384 (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 

1990). Townsley also asserts he was "deprived of legal materials" 

when he sent materials supporting an appeal of that case to the 

Tenth Circuit Clerk's Office. Further, he complains he is without 

his glasses and cannot concentrate. 

Even read with liberality, Townsley's claims describe 

"fantastic or delusional scenarios" and therefore are frivolous. 

Neitzke Y...!.. Williams 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1933 (1989). Because 

Townsley has failed to show a rational argument on the law and 

facts supporting his claims, Coppedge Y...!.. United States, 369 U.S. 

438 (1962); Ragan Y...!.. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962), we deny in 

forma pauperis, waive the fees, and AFFIRM. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3315 Document: 010110118032 Date Filed: 05/29/1991 Page: 2