Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05144/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05144-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States Postal Service
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee
Luc J. Van Rampelberg
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LUC J. VAN RAMPELBERG, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FI LED 

United Scares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci':':"\!tt 

JAN 8- 1 90 

&OBERT L. .HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and) 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) 

) 

No. 89-5144 

(D.C. No. 89-C-326-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, TACHA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Luc J. Van Rampelberg appeals from the order of the district 

court dismissing his in forma pauperis action as frivolous. We 

affirm. 

Van Rampelberg filed suit in forma pauperis against the 

United States Postal Service (USPS) alleging breach of contract. 

The gravamen of his complaint was that USPS promoted employees 

* 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: 89-5144 Document: 01019959005 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 1 
pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement ahead of individuals 

on the examination log. Van Rampelberg contended that this 

practice was a breach of contract and prayed for a permanent 

injunction against the USPS's practice. The district court 

determined that Van Rampelbergs complaint was ''obviously without 

merit" and dismissed pursuant to Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 

852, 853 (10th Cir. 1981). We agree. 

The in forma pauperis statute, 28 u.s.c. § 1915, states that 

The court may request an attorney to represent any [in 

forma pauperis] person unable to employ counsel and may 

dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, 

or if satisTied that the action is frivolous or 

malicious. 

In our view, this language expressly grants the district court 

power to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint whenever the court 

determines that the complaint is frivolous; dismissal is 

appropriate whenever the district court determines that the 

plaintiff cannnot make a rational argument on law or fact in 

support of the complaint. See Henriksen, 644 F.2d at 854. We 

review this determination de novo. Id. 

The district court did not err in dismissing Van Rampelberg's 

complaint as frivolous. It is well established that USPS 

examinations and placement on the employment register does not 

create an implied contract. See McLean v. United States, 209 Ct. 

Cl. 720 (1976). Nor does the action taken by the USPS in this 

case create a private right of action. See Blair v. United States 

Postal Serv., 657 F. Supp. 524, 527 (S.D. Tex. 1987). The 

complaint is frivolous. Dismissal was appropriate under 

Henriksen. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5144 Document: 01019959005 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 2 
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

3 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-5144 Document: 01019959005 Date Filed: 01/08/1990 Page: 3