Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03303/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03303-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FIL ~ · 

UnitedS ED 

tares Court of A 

Tench c;.. . ppeaJs -•ruu 

APR 15 199J 

ROBERT L. l-IOE LOUIS OSEI COTTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CJ k CKER 

No. 90-3303 er 

v. 

KATHY ISAACSON; KANSAN 

PUBLICATION CO., INC., 

(D.C. No. 90-3336-S) 

(Dist. Kansas) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. 

Louis Cotton brought this prose action for damages against 

the Kansan Publication Company and its employee, Kathy Isaacson. 

Cotton asserts constitutional and state law claims arising out of 

newspaper articles written by Isaacson and published by The Kansan 

Publication Company concerning Cotton's murder conviction. The 

*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: 90-3303 Document: 010110034176 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 1 
.,_ 

district court dismissed the action. Cotton appeals and seeks to 

proceed in forma pauperis. As discussed briefly below, we 

conclude that Cotton can make no rational argument on the law and 

the facts in support of the issues he asserts on appeal. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Cotton's claims are based on allegedly false and defamatory 

newspaper articles published by defendants. Federal district 

courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the 

Constitution and laws of the United States, see 28 u.s.c. § 1331 

(1988), and over civil actions involving in excess of $50,000 

between citizens of different states, see id.§ 1332. Cotton 

alleges that the articles at issue violated his rights under the 

First and Fourteenth Amendment. Although a remedy for 

constitutional violations is provided by 42 u.s.c. § 1983 (1988), 

that statute requires that the action causing the alleged 

deprivation be taken under color of state law. See West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Construing Cotton's prose 

complaint liberally, as we must, we find nothing to indicate that 

defendants here were acting under color of state law within the 

meaning of section 1983. Moreover, slander alone is not enough to 

state a constitutional claim. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 

(1976). Likewise, we find no allegation of diversity of 

citizenship to support jurisdiction under section 1332. Finally, 

it appears from material Cotton attached to his brief in this 

court that he filed an action in state court against these 

defendants based on the same newspaper articles underlying the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3303 Document: 010110034176 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 2 
instant action. The state trial court decided the action 

adversely to Cotton and he did not appeal. In this appeal, 

defendants contend that this action is therefore barred by the 

prior state court judgment, citing Carter v. City of Emporia, 815 

F.2d 617 (10th Cir. 1987). We agree. 

We thus conclude that Cotton can make no rational argument on 

the law and the facts to support his claims, and deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3303 Document: 010110034176 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 3