Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03351/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03351-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Lee McColpin
Appellant
Debra Byrd Wagner
Appellee

Document Text:

FILLu UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

GARY LEE McCOLPIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DEBRA BYRD WAGNER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DEC 2 2 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3351 

(D.C . No. 92-3242 -S ) 

(Dist. of Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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) ; Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore 

Gary Lee Mccolpin (McColpin), appearing prose, appeals from 

the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 

and a motion for preliminary injunction filed against Debra Byrd 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedenti a l value and shall n o t 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes o f e stablishing t he doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3351 Document: 010110154880 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 1 
Wagner (Wagner), an assistant district attorney for Sedgwick 

County, Kansas. 

Mccolpin is an inmate of the Lansing Correctional Facility, 

Lansing, Kansas. He was convicted by a jury in the District Court 

of Sedgwick County, Kansas, and sentenced for kidnapping, 

enticement of a child and attempted indecent liberties with a 

child. 

In his complaint filed in the federal district court in this 

action, Mccolpin alleged that Wagner "ruled against the plaintiff" 

in his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the District 

Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, on o r about Oct ober 17, 1991, 

and that Wagner deprived him of an appeal as of right because she 

represented that "the Kansas courts permit criminal appeals only 

on condition that the plaintiff follow the local rules and 

statutes governing such appeals." 

1992, p. 2A). 

(File, Complaint of July 2, 

The district court permitted Mccolpin the right to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismissed the case as frivo l ous and malicious 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The court states: 

Having considered the complaint and supporting 

materials, the court finds the action is both frivolous 

and malicious. Plaintiff alleges the defendant, an 

assistant district attorney in Sedgwick County, Kansas, 

"ruled against the plaintiff" in a state postconviction 

proceeding filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 in October 

1991 (Complaint, p. 2A). Elsewhere in the complaint, he 

appears to allege the defendant failed .. . to disclose 

exculpatory evidence. (Complaint, p. 3). However, 

plaintiff fails to identify what information might have 

been available or any basis for his allegation. The 

court is persuaded plaintiff's assertions must be 

characterized as malicious and finds no arguable basis 

has been presented to support his request f or injunctive relief. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3351 Document: 010110154880 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 2 
(File , Memorandum and Order, August 31, 1992, pp. 1-2). 

Mccolpin was denied leave to proceed in f orma pauperis on 

appeal and he was denied a certificate of probable cause (File, 

Order of September 29, 1992). 

On appeal, Mccolpin argues that his right to appeal from his 

state court conviction was denied. Accordingly, he contends 

"Federal injunctive relief against a state court proceeding can in 

some circumstances be essential to prevent great, immediate, and 

irreparable loss of a person's constitutional rights." 

(Appellant 's Opening Brief, p. 2). 

We grant McColpin's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal, but we affirm the district court's denial of a certificate 

of probable cause. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 191S(d), a court may dismiss a case if it 

is "satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious." This 

section applies to pro s e complaints. See LaFevers v. Saffle, 936 

F .2d 1117, 1118 (10th Cir. 1991) ("Although prose complaints are 

to be construed liberally, they are dismissed under section 

191S(d) if plaintiff cannot make a rational argument on the law 

and facts in support of his claim. " ). Appellate review must focus 

on whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing 

a complaint. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992 ) ; 

Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F. 2d 1431, 1434 (10th Cir. 1986 ). 

After a close reading of McColpin's complaint, briefs on 

appeal and the entire district court file, we are convinced that 

the district court did not abuse its discre tion in dismissing this 

case as frivolous and malicious. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3351 Document: 010110154880 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 3 
One will search in vain for a specific allegation advanced by 

Mccolpin against Wagner. We do know that Wagner, an assistant 

district attorney for Sedgwick County, Kansas, represented the 

State in McColpin's habeas corpus case filed in the District Court 

of Sedgwick County. In her capacity, Wagner had no power or 

authority to enter any orders affecting Mccolpin. 

We concur in the district court's denial of a certificate of 

probable cause on appeal and we AFFIRM the district court's order 

of dismissal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3351 Document: 010110154880 Date Filed: 12/22/1992 Page: 4