Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03184/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

BENNY R. SMITH, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS WADDINGTON, Warden, in 

his individual capacity; TIM EASLEY, 

Deputy Warden, in his individual capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-3184

(D.C. No. 5:15-CV-03186-SAC-DJW)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

By order entered August 17, 2015, the court directed the appellant to respond to 

two specific questions. First, we identified two potential jurisdictional defects with this 

appeal and directed the appellant to describe “in detail any legal basis in support of the 

court’s jurisdiction to consider the appeal.” Second, we noted that this is an appeal from a 

prisoner civil rights case, so the appellant was likely required to prepay the appellate 

filing fees before continuing with the appeal because he has accumulated three “strikes” 

under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Importantly, we warned the 

appellant that “[f]ailure to respond in full to the issues raised in this order to show cause 

may be grounds for dismissal without further notice.” See 10th Cir. R. 42.1

The appellant filed his “Answer and Counter Response” on September 8, 2015. 

This document addressed only the issue of whether the appellant must prepay the 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 18, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3184 Document: 01019493071 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 1 
2

appellate filing fees, however. The document does not acknowledge or explain the 

jurisdictional defect we identified, nor does it provide any legal basis to support appellate 

jurisdiction at this time. Further, our recent review of the district court docket shows that 

no final judgment has yet been entered in the underlying case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

Since the appellant failed to respond to the court’s challenge to appellate 

jurisdiction, we deem the appellant’s Answer and Counter Response to be incomplete and 

therefore nonresponsive to our August 17, 2015 order to show cause. Accordingly, the 

captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3184 Document: 01019493071 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 2