Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03289/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03289-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILI':D 

United States Cou · 0r Appeals UNITED STAT COURT OF APPEALS TP" t.h Ci• ·. 

TEN'! CIRCUIT JAN 2 7 1993 

WILLIE STEVENSON, 

P: 1intiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

BRAD BALES and GERALD HOUGHLAND, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. E J .,..:CKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3289 

(D.C. No. 92-3294-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ** 

Plaintiff appeals the_ district court's dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 claim. In the court below, Plaintiff alleged that 

his probation officer and a state district court judge violated 

his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed 

Plaintiff's action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review for 

abuse of disc retion, Denton v. Hernandez , 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 

(1992). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not ~e cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

exc~pt for purposes of establishing the d octrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral e . ~ppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** Af ter 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-3289 Document: 010110159295 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested on July 9, 1992, in 

Kansas City, Kansas for violating his parole by failing to report 

to his probation officer. He further alleges that he did not 

report to his probation officer because the officer had informed 

him by telephone that if Plaintiff did report, he would be 

arrested for escaping from a Jackson County, Missouri jail. 

Plaintiff does not deny that he escaped from a Jackson County 

jail; however, he alleges that his probation officer's "threat" to 

have him arrested amounted to entrapment and violated his right to 

due process. Plaintiff also alleges that his due process rights 

were violated because he was not served with copies of the charges 

against him when he was arrested at the Kansas City Police 

Station, and because the Johnson County district court judge 

failed to respond to several motions he filed with the court. 1 

Frivolous or malicious claims are properly dismissed under 

§ 1915(d) . Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991). 

A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in 

law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To 

state a valid claim under§ 1983, a plaintiff must allege the 

deprivation of a constitutional right. Northington v. Jackson, 

973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992) . 

Plaintiff's claim concerning his probation officer's actions 

fails to allege the deprivation of a right to due process. First, 

1 We will not consider the numerous other issues Plaintiff has 

raised for the first time on appeal. See Hicks v. Gates Rubber 

Co., 928 F.2d 966, 970 (10th Cir. 1991). 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3289 Document: 010110159295 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 2 
entrapment is not a constitutional violation. Second, the 

probation officer's actions do not "shock the conscience" and 

therefore fail to meet the standard for substantive due process 

claims. See Frohmader ~- Wayne, 958 F.2d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir. 

1992). Likewise, Plaintiff's claim that he was not served with 

copies of the charges against him when he was arrested fails to 

allege the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Morrissey 

v. Brewer, 408 U.S . 471, 486-89 (1972) (Due process, in the 

context of parole revocation, does not require written notice of 

charged parole violation at time of arrest) . Finally, Plaintiff 

does not have a constitutional right to a hearing on every motion 

he filed in state district court. 

In the absence of "a rational argument on the law or the 

facts," petitioner's request to proceed in fonna pauperis is 

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962); 28 U.S . C. § 1915(d). 

SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3289 Document: 010110159295 Date Filed: 01/27/1993 Page: 3