Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06180/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06180-0/pdf.json

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

---

.FILED 

Uruted States Co~tri oi Appeals 

·r,, ... _~~•'-'~ .., ! .. .. ,,.,::+ 

FEB 2 0 1991 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6180 

(D.C. No. CIV-89-2218-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 90-6180 Document: 010110103798 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
• 

Mr. Davis filed a prose§ 1983 complaint against the United 

States based upon conditions he encountered in a county jail while 

awaiting trial on federal charges. The government filed a motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim based upon the assertion 

the United States was not a proper party to a § 1983 action. 

Notwithstanding the validity of that assertion, the district court 

dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, on procedural grounds. 

In denying Mr. Davis permission to appeal in forma pauperis, 

the court certified the appeal is frivolous and not taken in good 

faith. A trial court certification of that nature precludes 

appeal in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

In order to succeed, Mr. Davis must show both: 1) a 

financial inability to pay the required filing fees, and 2) the 

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and 

facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 u.s.c. 

§ 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan 

v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

It is evident Mr. Davis can make no rational argument on the 

law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. 

Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees is denied. 

The appeal is DISMISSED because no rational argument can be 

made, and the mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6180 Document: 010110103798 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2