Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03112/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03112-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L 1) 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeal~ 

CARROL RICHARD OLSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LEE THOMPSON, United States Attorney, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth Cirr!uit 

APR 1 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3112 

{D.C. No . CIV- 92-3096-R) 

{D. Kan . ) 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and RUSSELL,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable David L . Russell , District 

District Court for the Western District of 

designation. 

Judge, United States 

Oklahoma, sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument . 

The case is therefore ordered 

Car rol Richard Olson complained that h i s civil righ ts, and 

the rights of all Kansas prisoners who were required to post bond, 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tent h Circuit, 

e x cep t for purposes of establishing the doctrines o f the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-3112 Document: 010110212747 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 1 
were violated when United States ttorney Thompson did not require 

an appeal bond from Robert Stepha, Attorney General of Kansas. 

The district court found Olso 's complaint was frivolous and 

dismissed the complaint under 28 .S.C. § 1915 (d). We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 291 and affirm for substantially 

the same reasons stated by the di trict court. 

Olson must assert his own le al rights and cannot rest his 

constitutional claim on injury o others. See Bell & Howell Co. 

v . NLRB, 598 F.2d 136, 143 (D.C. ir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 942 

(1979 ) . Therefore, we need no consider Olson's allegations of 

injury to other Kansas prison rs. Olson alleged that he, 

personally, was "denied bond with no reason in all courts contrary 

to the constitution of the United States." Record, doc. 2 at 4. 

This allegation, however, is eneral and conclusory. We agree 

with the district court that Olso 's action lacks "an arguable 

factual or legal basis for imp sing liability." Record, doc. 4 

at 1. 

We will not consider Ols n's second claim on appeal, 

challenging the propriety of equiring bonds from convicted 

criminals in his situation, becau e he failed to raise this claim 

below. Finally, Olson's motio for sanctions and discipline of 

attorneys is DENIED. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3112 Document: 010110212747 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 2 
Olson's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, a nd 

the judgment of the United States District Court for the District 

of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3112 Document: 010110212747 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3112 Document: 010110212747 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 4