Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03132/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03132-0/pdf.json

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

---

F IL~ .. .J 

United States Court of Appeah Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

APR 21 1993 

ROBERT L, HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARROLL RICHARD OLSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v . ) No . 92-3132 

) (D.C. No. 92-CV-3131-S ) 

FT. SCOTT TRIBUNE, Fred Embry, ) (D . Kan.) 

owner - editor; PAUL "CHRIS" NELSON, 

County Attorney, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9. 

submitted without oral argument . 

The case 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: 92-3132 Document: 010110212825 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 1 
Appellate Case: 92-3132 Document: 010110212825 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 2 
Carroll Richard Olson appeals the district court's sua sponte 

dismissal of his complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 

that the owner of the Ft. Scott Tribune and the county attorney 

published false information about him. Olson claimed that, by 

this action, defendants invaded his privacy and libeled, 

slandered, and defamed him. The district court found "no factual 

or legal basis for proceeding further under§ 1983." Rec., doc. 4 

at 1. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291 and affirm 

for substantially the reasons stated by the district court. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989 ) (recognizing 

district court's power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915{d) to dismiss, sua 

sponte, claims based on indisputably meritless legal theory); 

Siegart v. Gilley. 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 

693 (1976 ) . 

Olson's motion for default judgment is DENIED: once the 

district court dismissed Olson's suit, defendants were relieved of 

their obligation to answer his complaint. Olson's motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, his motion to transfer the 

liabilities of Paul Nelson to Nelson's estate is DISMISSED as 

moot, 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 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3132 Document: 010110212825 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3132 Document: 010110212825 Date Filed: 04/21/1993 Page: 4