Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01325/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01325-0/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.uD 

United States CourtCi oflt Appeal! 

CHARLES S. SHARROCK ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARK ) 

LINDERMAN, Access Attorney; MIKE ) 

VIGIL, Law Librarian; TOM MISEL, ) 

Case Manager; JOHN CARROL, Case ) 

Manager; PHIL ARAGON, Case Manager;) 

JOSEPH HAUGHAIN, Step III Grievance) 

Officer, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth rcu 

APR 13 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1325 

(D.C. No. 92-Z-651) 

(D . Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Charles Stephen 

Sharrock's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

Plaintiff filed suit against the Colorado Department of Corrections and several employees of the Department, which the district court dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in 

accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge . The 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

be 

for 

res 

Appellate Case: 92-1325 Document: 010110200918 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 1 
district court found plaintiff's appeal to be legally frivolous 

and not taken in good faith and denied plaintiff leave to appeal 

in forma pauperis. Plaintiff complains that he has been denied 

court access, that the prison grievance procedures denied him due 

process, and that he was denied equal protection. 

In order to succeed on his motion, plaintiff must show both a 

financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in 

support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d ); 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962 ) ; Ragan v. Cox, 305 

F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

We agree with the analysis of the magistrate judge and 

adopted by the district court that plaintiff's allegations of 

denial of court access are too conclusory and fail to allege the 

personal participation of prison officials in alleged confiscation 

of his paperwork, necessary to state a cause of action under 

§ 1983 . Cotner, 795 F .2d at 901-02 (10th Cir. 1986 ) ; Bennett v. 

Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1262-63 (10th Cir. 1976 ) . We also note 

that plaintiff has filed fifteen separate complaints in federal 

district court since July 15, 1989. Such activity belies any 

allegation plaintiff has been denied access to the courts. 

Plaintiff has also alleged violation of his right to equal 

protection of 

protected class. 

the law, but failed to allege he is a member of a 

Ruark v. Solano, 928 F.2d 947, 949 (10th Cir. 

1991 ). Likewise, because state prison grievance procedures do not 

implicate federally protected rights, plaintiff's complaints about 

that process may not be the basis for a§ 1983 complaint. Shango 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-1325 Document: 010110200918 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 2 
v. Jurich, 681 F . 2d 1091, 1101- 02 (7th Cir. 1982 ) . 

Velasco-Guitierrez v. Crossland, 732 F.2d 792, 798 (1 0th Cir. 

19 84 ) . 

We have examined the record and plaintiff's brief and agree 

with the district court that plaintiff has not stated a claim 

against any of the named defendants. Plaintiff can make n o 

rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues 

raise d on appeal. Therefore, the motion for leave to appeal 

without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. This appeal is 

dismissed. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3 -

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1325 Document: 010110200918 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-1325 Document: 010110200918 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 4