Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03290/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03290-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL~ D 

United States Court of Appeab Tc·r.th r•rl"Uif:. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 2 3 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerl: 

ROBERT EUGENE MOORE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STEVEN J. DAVIES; RAYMOND ) 

ROBERTS; R.L. SMITH; DOUGLAS ) 

FRIESZ, Major; (NFN) (NMI) ) 

MCMILLAN, Captain; (NFN) SWOPE, ) 

Captain; (NFN) (NMI) RANDOLPH, ) 

Captain; (NFN) (NMI) JESMORE, ) 

Captain; (NFN) (NMI) CASTELLO, ) 

Captain; (NFN) (NMI) PAYNES; ) 

(NFN) (NMI) HUGHES, Lt.; (NFN) ) 

(NMI) MULVANE, Lt.; (NFN) (NMN) ) 

COLETEN, Lt.; (NFN) (NMI) ) 

WARDLOW, Sgt . ; (NFN) (NMI) ) 

YEVAK, C.S.I; (NFN) BOTTORFF, ) 

Sgt.; (NFI) (NMI) CONNALLY, ) 

Sgt.; (NFN) SHIPMAN, U.T.M.; ) 

(NFN) (NMI) TAYLOR, U.T . M. ; ) 

(NFN) (NMI) GEE, Unit Team; ) 

(NFN) BEURSKEN, Unit Team; ) 

(NFN) (NMI) BERRYE, Unit Team; ) 

(NFN) MYERS, c . c . I . ; (NFN) (NMI)) 

FRYMAN, c.o.I.; (NFN) ) 

PFANNENSTEIL, c.c.I. ; I.K. ) 

POTTS, C.O.I.; (NFN) ALLEN, ) 

C.O . I.; (NFN) (NMI) LANZA, Unit) 

Team; CAROL DANIELS; w. FINCH; ) 

(NFN) BRENNIGER; C. CARPENTER; ) 

(NFN) CALLISON, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-3290 

(D . C. No . 91-CV-3201) 

(D, Kansas) 

Appellate Case: 91-3290 Document: 010110239032 Date Filed: 03/23/1992 Page: 1 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

The district court dismissed the complaint of Robert Eugene 

Moore alleging constitutional deprivations on the ground that it 

is frivolous . We have examined the complaint, and we agree. 

The document consists of thirty-two pages, most of which 

contain a stream of consciousness recitation of Mr. Moore's 

obsessive love for a female corrections officer in the Lansing 

Correctional Facility in which he is confined. To the extent one 

can follow the tale, Mr. Moore asserts his love became all 

consuming, and it led to institutional punishment arising from his 

contact with the officer. Mr. Moore's recitation makes equivocal 

whether his affections were returned by the officer, but some of 

the documents attached to his complaint suggest she was more aloof 

than attracted. He concluded his verbose and prolix factual 

recitation with many conclusory allegations of constitutional 

deprivation against some thirty-three people connected in varying 

capacities with the Lansing institution. Mr. Moore seeks various 

*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. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3290 Document: 010110239032 Date Filed: 03/23/1992 Page: 2 
forms of mandatory injunctive relief as well as punitive damages 

in the amount of $10,000 from each defendant. 

A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in 

law or fact and embraces not only an inarguable legal conclusion 

but also a fanciful factual allegation. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Examples of frivolous complaints are those 

describing fanciful and delusional scenarios. Id. at 328. 

The complaint filed by Mr. Moore seems to allege the 

institutional punishment he received was the consequence of a 

mutual love affair between himself and a correctional officer. 

Yet, the supporting documentation he attached to his pleading 

suggests his treatment was the consequence of violating 

institutional rules. Moreover, the documents indicate he pled 

guilty to those violations. We therefore believe the complaint is 

fanciful and that the trial court was correct in holding it 

frivolous. 

This matter is now before the court on Mr. Moore's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

To succeed on the motion, Mr. Moore must show both: a financial 

inability to pay the required filing fees, and the existence of a 

reasone d, 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). We conclude Mr. Moore can make no rational 

a r gument on the law or facts; therefore, the motion for leave to 

proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is DENIED. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3290 Document: 010110239032 Date Filed: 03/23/1992 Page: 3 
It is further ordered the appeal is DISMISSED because no rational 

argument can be made. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3290 Document: 010110239032 Date Filed: 03/23/1992 Page: 4