Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06350/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06350-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN FRANCIS ROURKE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) No. 90-6350 

. FILED 

Umted S_tates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

A R 18 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

DELMAR KLEPPER; BILLY ALLISON; ) 

PHILL McCOMAS; ROGER COSGRO; ) 

TODD EDWARDS; HAROLD DEFIBAUGH; ) 

KARLA JANSON; SUSAN FICK; ART ) 

BEELER; and WILLIAM MOBELY, ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-734-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

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. 

*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: 90-6350 Document: 010110034244 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 1 
/ ~ . 

John Francis Rourke appeals from the dismissal of his 

complaints concerning constitutional violations and violations of 

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 

u.s.c. § 1961-68 by prison officials. Specifically, Mr. Rourke 

alleges that prison officials violated several of his 

constitutional rights such as access to the courts. The district 

court held that Mr. Rourke had failed to exhaust his 

administrative remedies concerning his constitutional claims and 

had failed to present facts that would support a RICO claim. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude the district court 

committed no reversible error, and on the basis of the reasoning 

set forth in its Order of October 29, 1990, and on the basis of 

our reasoning in the related case of Rourke v. Beeler, No. 

90-6353, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 

McCarthy v. Maddigan, 914 F.2d 1411, 1412 (10th Cir. 1990); 

Brice v. Day, 604 F.2d 664, 666-68 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 

444 U.S. 1086 (1980). The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6350 Document: 010110034244 Date Filed: 04/18/1991 Page: 2