Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06038/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06038-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

Uoited St11tes Con.re of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

SHERRI DIANE DAVIS; and MINNETTA 

DENISON, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-6038 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-20-T) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

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. 

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

district court dismissing his in forma pauperis section 1983 

complaint as frivolous under 28 u.s.c. § 1915. We affirm. 

In his complaint, Davis alleges that Sherri Diane Davis and 

Minnetta Denison conspired to violate his civil rights by forging 

* 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: 90-6038 Document: 010110042225 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 1 
a threatening letter sent to two federal judges. Davis also 

complains about ineffective assistance of counsel, refusals to 

admit evidence, including particularly an alleged confession by 

Sherri Davis and Denison, and other errors. 

The district court characterized Davis's complaint as a claim 

under section 1983. We agree with this characterization. Even 

though the complaint contains many claims more usually found in a 

habeas petition, neither Sherri Davis nor Denison are holding 

Davis in custody nor are they agents of the government, which is 

holding Davis in custody. Davis's complaint cannot be a habeas 

petition. 

Construing the complaint as a section 1983 claim, we agree 

with the district court that it must be dismissed. Davis does not 

allege that either Sherri Davis or Denison are state actors. 

Section 1983, however, requires the presence of state action. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1983; .§.gg also Paul Y..!.. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976). 

After reviewing the record, we find no evidence that either Davis 

or Denison were acting under color of state law. Accordingly, 

Davis has stated no grounds for relief under section 1983. 

As plaintiff's complaint is filed in forma pauperis, and we 

find that he can make no argument on the law or the facts in 

support of his claim for relief, we AFFIRM the judgment of the 

district court dismissing the complaint as frivolous. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

2 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6038 Document: 010110042225 Date Filed: 09/19/1990 Page: 2