Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04220/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04220-0/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 APPEALS United Statel Court of A~ Tenth Cil"euft 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVID JAMES FRATUS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

PHILIP G. JONES, CARYL. KROG, 

WAYNE A. FREESTONE, DAVID J. 

ANGESHOFER, DANNY QUINTANA, 

and MR. ESPARZA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR 2 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-4220 

(D. Utah) 

(D.C. No. 92-C-676-W) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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. 

David James Fratus appeals the dismissal, pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(d), of his civil rights complaint against various 

attorneys and individuals providing legal assistance to inmates at 

the Utah State Prison. The complaint alleged violations of civil 

* 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: 92-4220 Document: 010110212860 Date Filed: 04/26/1993 Page: 1 
rights under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, § 1985(3), and§ 1986. 1 Mr. Fratus 

also appeals the district court's denial of his motion to have 

counsel appointed to represent him. 

We have carefully reviewed the record in this case and 

conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Mr. 

Fratus' complaint and in denying the motion to appoint counsel . 

Accordi ngly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED . 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

circuit Judge 

1 Although the district court referred only to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

in its order of dismissal dated November 19, 1992, that order 

adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge which 

dealt with all aspects of Mr. Fratus' complaint. R. Vol . I at 

Tabs 4 , 5. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4220 Document: 010110212860 Date Filed: 04/26/1993 Page: 2