Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05123/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05123-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT COTNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

BETTY COTNER; COTNER ENTERPRISES, ) 

INC.; THE CHURCH OF THE REMNANT, INC.,) 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LARRY FUGATE, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, 

MICHAEL LEOFFLER, BRUCE DUNCAN, STATE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEALS F l L ~ .0 

_:...~ States Court of Appeal! Um_. Tenth c,t"r..uit 

DEC 171992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-5123 

(D.C. No. 92 -C-64-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff Robert E. 

Cotner's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment 

of costs or fees. 

* 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: 92-5123 Document: 010110152652 Date Filed: 12/17/1992 Page: 1 
In order to succeed on his motion, plaintiff must show b o t h a 

financial inability t o pay the required filing fees and the existenc e o f a reasoned, n onfrivo l ous argument on the law and facts i n 

s u pport o f the issu es raised on appeal. See 28 U. S . C. § 1 915 (a ) ; 

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

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

Plaintiff filed suit against five named and "unknown" other 

defendants, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 

1985 (3 ) and 1986 and 18 u.s.c. §§ 1961-1968. Upon motion by 

defendants, the district court ultimately dismissed the case as to 

all defendants for insufficiency of service and failure to state a 

claim. This was after plaintiff failed to avail himself of the 

opportunity to lawfully serve certain defendants or to amend his 

complaint within the time granted by the district court. We have 

reviewed the pertinent statutes, rules and case law and conclude 

that the district court correctly analyzed whether plaintiff properly served those defendants who challenged service of process. 

As to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, filed on 

behalf of the remaining defendant, Bruce Duncan, we agree with the 

district court that the complaint lacked the necessary specificity 

t o withstand that motion. The complaint only mentions Duncan 

twice . The allegations d o not identify the constitutional rights 

Duncan allegedly deprived plaintiff of or Duncan's role in the 

alleged conspiracy. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5123 Document: 010110152652 Date Filed: 12/17/1992 Page: 2 
We conclude that plaintiff can make no rational argument on 

the law or facts 1 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. Plaintiff's motion to remand 

is denied as moot. The appeal is dismissed. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

1 Plaintiff's pleading of June 12, 1992, which was treated as a 

notice of appeal, includes information that indicates plaintiff 

has sufficient resources to negate the declaration of poverty 

attached to his brief. This is an alternative ground for dis- missal of his appeal . See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) . 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-5123 Document: 010110152652 Date Filed: 12/17/1992 Page: 3