Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03074/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis Osei Cotton
Appellant
Alan Hancock
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 2 7 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

LOUIS OSEI COTTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ALAN HANCOCK, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-3074 

(D.C. No. 90-3071-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on the motion of appellant 

Louis Osei Cotton for leave to proceed on appeal without 

prepayment of costs or fees. Appellant seeks damages from Alan 

Hancock, coroner of Wyandotte County, Kansas, for alleged 

negligence in an investigation that led to appellant's conviction 

* 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: 90-3074 Document: 010110041581 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 1 
for murder. The district court dismissed this action as frivolous 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Apellant asserted jurisdiciton in the district court under 28 

u.s.c. § 2674; however, that statute only provides for suits 

against the United States. Even reading the complaint with 

liberality as one for violation of appellant's constitutional 

rights, redressable under 42 u.s.c. § 1983, it fails to state a 

claim. The complaint alleges only negligence of the defendant 

coroner in performing an autopsy on the victim of the crime; that 

is not sufficient to state a claim of constitutional magnitude. 

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 332-33 (1986). 

In order to succeed on his motion, an appellant must show 

both: 

1. A financial inability to pay the required filing fees and 

2. The existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous 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); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). 

We conclude that appellant can make no rational argument on 

the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, as 

required by paragraph two above. Therefore, the motion for leave 

to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is 

denied. 

It is further ordered as follows: 

1. The filing fee is waived; 

2. The appeal is dismissed because no rational argument can 

be made; and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3074 Document: 010110041581 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 2 
3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3074 Document: 010110041581 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 3