Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03237/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David R. Brown
Appellant
Steven J. Davies
Appellee
Ray Roberts
Appellee

Document Text:

. FILED 

Uruted States Court of Appeals 

T~nd, C;r-:-ii:t UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

DAVID R. BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

JAN 10 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

STEVEN J. DAVIES and RAY ROBERTS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-3237 

(D.C. No. 89-3267-S) 

(District of Kansas) 

Before McKAY, ANDERSON 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 

granted, the fee is waived, and the merits have been submitted to 

the court on the briefs and the record. 

* 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: 89-3237 Document: 01019959064 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 1 
Appellant filed an action which he designated as a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241. Because the matters 

he appears to be complaining of relate entirely to conditions of 

confinement rather than the constitutionality of his conviction 

and sentence, the trial court properly treated the case as one for 

civil rights relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although numerous matters were alluded to in plaintiff's complaint, as it stood 

it was not sufficiently intelligible or detailed for the trial 

court to find any basis for relief. The trial court directed supplements to the brief in order to ascertain the specific conduct 

and the specific actors about which the appellant was complaining. 

The supplements add little to what was contained in the complaint. 

The best we can determine from reading all of appellant's 

papers suggests that he is complaining of malpractice or 

inadequate treatment of keloids which have developed on his ears; 

double bunking in the prison; rules relating to the confiscation 

of unauthorized items in the prisoner's cells; and general 

unspecified harassment of prisoners. 

Construed as broadly as possible in light of appellant's pro 

se status, nothing he has set forth in any of his papers remotely 

sets forth a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment. 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Furthermore, appellant altogether fails to set forth with sufficient detail any personal participation in the events he appears to complain of by the 

named defendants. He has altogether failed to satisfy the 

requirements of Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); Kite v. 

Kelley, 546 F.2d 334, 337-38 (10th Cir. 1976). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3237 Document: 01019959064 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 2 
Appellant also complains about the failure to appoint counsel. We find no basis for appointing counsel in this civil 

action. 

The trial court properly dismissed appellant's complaint as 

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

Appellant's appeal is dismissed as frivolous. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3237 Document: 01019959064 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 3