Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03031/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03031-0/pdf.json

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

---

> 

FI LED 

U11ited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUN 10 19S1 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

BYRON J. STEVENS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

US SPRINT TELEPHONE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-3031 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-3367) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

Byron J. Stevens, an inmate in a penal institution in North 

Carolina, filed a prose complaint in the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas against U.S. Sprint Telephone Co. 

*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: 91-3031 Document: 010110118857 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 1 
' 

~ Citing as the court's jurisdictional basis "the appropriate and 

applicable United States Code and Rules of Civil Procedures 

[sic]," plaintiff averred when inmates in correctional 

institutions in North Carolina placed collect long-distance calls, 

the person called was advised by the operator that the call was 

from an inmate or a penal institution. 1 Plaintiff did not set 

forth the basis for his action, but he averred, "The laws of the 

United States and North Carolina totally prohibit the use of 

wiretapping in all manners except where such is strictly 

authorized for a particular instant and manner." In response to 

defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 

plaintiff argued the jurisdictional base of his action is a North 

Carolina criminal statute which prohibits an unauthorized 

connection with the wire or facility owned by a telephone company. 

The district court granted the motion to dismiss, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and subsequently denied plaintiff's motion for 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that this action 

is frivolous. The appeal now pends before us on plaintiff's 

motion for leave to appeal without prepayment of fees, and both 

sides have filed briefs on the merits. We deny the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. 

The pleadings of a pro se litigant must be construed 

liberally and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted 

by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). 

Further, a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state 

1

oefendant admits the practice occurred, but advised the district 

court that it had been discontinued. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3031 Document: 010110118857 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 2 
• 

i a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no facts which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. 

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Applying those principles, we 

see no way in which plaintiff could prove the claims he asserted. 

Plaintiff's attempt to obtain damages and injunctive relief 

was abortive. A long-distance operator's inquiry whether a person 

wants to receive a call from an inmate or an institution does not 

constitute a violation of the federal wiretapping law. Such a 

violation occurs only upon an unlawful interception, revelation, 

or disclosure of the contents of a wire communication. 18 u.s.c. 

§ 2511(1). The operator's inquiry is not an interception within 

the meaning of the statute because it is not an "acquisition of 

the contents of any wire ... communication." Under the 

circumstances of this case, until 

communication can occur; hence, 

until after the call is accepted. 

the call is connected, no 

no interception can take place 

Plaintiff's reliance upon the 

federal wiretap statute is misplaced. 

The same conclusion applies to plaintiff's reliance upon the 

North Carolina criminal statute. That provision contains no 

private enforcement provisions, nor does it constitute a civil 

remedy. 

Before plaintiff can succeed on his motion for leave to 

appeal without prepayment of fees, he must establish: 1. A 

financial inability to pay the required filing fees, and 2. The 

existence of a reasoned, non-frivolous 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); 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3031 Document: 010110118857 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 3 
' Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). We conclude appellant 

can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of 

the issues raised on appeal; therefore, the motion for leave to 

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

Moreover, we conclude the lack of rationality in the 

arguments of the plaintiff on the merits of this case mandate its 

dismissal. Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3031 Document: 010110118857 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 4