Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08032/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08032-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

(bite St t ourt of Aor:>e"..ls 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tlintb Ci:-ruit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

DOUGLAS H. WEBSTER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER and BOARD OF PAROLE - ) 

WYOMING, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

DOUGLAS H. WEBSTER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DUANE SHILLINGER; ARCHIE KIRSCH, M.D.; ) 

MARY DRUMMOND, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JAN 2 

.ROBERT L. HOEC¥..ER 

Clerk 

No. 90-8031 

(D.C. No. C-90-069B) 

( D. Wyo.) 

No. 90-8032 

(D.C. No. C-90-068B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before MOORE, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and SPARR,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Daniel 

District Court for 

designation. 

* 

B. Sparr, District Judge, 

the District of Colorado, 

United States 

sitting by 

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: 90-8032 Document: 010110080471 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Wyoming State Penitentiary, 

appeals from the district court's sua sponte dismissal of two 

actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the first (appeal No. 

90-8032), plaintiff alleged that defendants had violated his 

eighth and fourteenth amendment rights by displaying a deliberate 

indifference to his medical needs. In the second (appeal No. 

90-8031), plaintiff again raised the deliberate indifference 

claim, but primarily complained of a decision of the parole board 

conditioning his parole upon completion of a substance abuse 

program. 

These consolidated matters are before the court on 

plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal. Upon our review of the record, motion and brief filed 

herein, we conclude that the claims asserted by plaintiff are 

indisputably meritless and were, therefore, properly dismissed by 

the district court pursuant to its authority under 28 u.s.c. 

1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, __ , 109 S. Ct. 

1827, 1833 (1989). 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal is DENIED, and these appeals are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-8032 Document: 010110080471 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 2 
request that we hear argument concerning asserted discriminatory 

practices in the district court is DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-8032 Document: 010110080471 Date Filed: 01/28/1991 Page: 3