Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06162/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06162-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG - 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

1.8 ACRES LOCATED AT ROUTE ONE, 

BOX 106-A, TUTTLE, GRADY COUNTY, 

OKLAHOMA, 

Defendant. 

JOHN WEBSTER FLANAGAN, 

Claimant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-6162 

) (D.C. No. Civ-87-0094-R) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK and EBEL, Circuit Judges. ** 

* 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. 

** 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 therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 89-6162 Document: 010110040727 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 1 
Claimant John Flanagan seeks to appeal the district court's 

denial of his claim against the defendant real property in this 

forfeiture proceeding. 21 u.s.c. S 881(a)(6). The district held 

that Flanagan (1) had no standing to contest forfeiture of the 

property because he had no legally cognizable interest in the 

property and (2) could not represent the titleholder, Jo Morgan, 

because he was not a licensed attorney and she had not authorized 

' his intervention on her behalf. Now before the court is 

Flanagan's motion pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 1915 to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

A panel of this court dismissed a previous appeal by Flanagan 

as frivolous, but subsequently vacated that order and dismissed 

the appeal as prematurely filed. United States v. 1.8 Acres, No. 

89-6033, order (10th Cir. May 30, 1989), vacated order (10th Cir. 

Nov. 8, 1989). Substantively, Flanagan's second appeal is 

identical to his first. We therefore see no point in belaboring 

the matter. Because Flanagan can make no rational argument in law 

or fact to support his claim, we deny his motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 28 u.s.c. S 1915(d); 

Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989) (§ 1915 

authorizes court to dismiss "indisputably meritless" claim). 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6162 Document: 010110040727 Date Filed: 08/08/1990 Page: 2