Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03148/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03148-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nola Foulston
Appellee
Gary Lee McColpin
Appellant

Document Text:

-.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GARY LEE McCOLPIN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant,) 

) 

. FILED 

UflJted States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

AUG 15 1990 

1t0BERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

No. 90-3148 

(D. Kan. 90-3119-S) 

NOLA FOULSTON, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff filed a prose§ 1983 action in district court 

alleging that defendant fraudulently represented and concealed 

material facts in a state appellate brief in violation of 

defendant's constitutional rights. The district court dismissed 

the action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d) because the complaint 

* 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: 90-3148 Document: 010110040878 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 1 
.J 

... 

lacked an arguable legal basis for imposing liability on 

defendant. 

To the extent that plaintiff is challenging the legality of 

dismissals pursuant to§ 1915(d), we reject his argument. The 

Supreme Court has explainted that: 

Congress recognized ... that a litigant whose filing 

fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike 

paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain 

from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive 

lawsuits. To prevent such abusive or captious 

litigation,§ 1915(d) authorizes federal courts to 

dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis "if the 

allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that 

the action is frivolous or malicious." 

Neitzke v. Williams, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831 (1989). After 

reviewing the record and plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis, we deny plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed 

without prepayment of costs or fees and dismiss the appeal because 

there is not rational argument on the law and facts in support of 

the issues raised on appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 

438 ( 1962). The mandate shall issue0forthwi th .. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3148 Document: 010110040878 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 2