Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03368/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Barr
Appellee
(NFN) Gallegos
Appellee
Andrew Walker
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FI .L ~ D , 

United Sta~ ~~rt~f Apr,:r.,:; T~.t'1 ,_rr, . .i., 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 2 9 1992 

-----------ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ANDREW WALKER 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR and 

(NFN) GALLEGOS, Lieutenant, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 91-3368 

(D.C . No. 91-3327-R) 

( D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Andrew Walker's 

motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs 

or fees. In order to succeed on his motion, Mr. Walker must show 

both: 

*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: 91-3368 Document: 010110254347 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 1
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). 

Mr. Walker filed this action on October 30, 1991, complaining 

about the taking of his property on December 16, 1988. The 

district court construed the complaint as a Bivens action and 

dismissed because Mr. Walker had allegedly filed a substantially 

similar claim in an earlier case which was still pending and, 

alternatively, because this current action is barred by the Kansas 

two-year statute of limitation. 

We cannot tell from this record whether this action is 

substantially similar to an earlier action. Nevertheless, the 

district court was correct in dismissing on the alternative basis 

of the statute of limitations. Under Kansas law, Mr . Walker was 

required to bring the present action within two years of December 

16, 1988, the date on which he lost his property. See Kan. Stat. 

Ann.§ 513(a)(4) (1985); Wilson v . Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985); 

Pike v. City of Mission, 731 F.2d 655, 658 (10th Cir. 1984). 

Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Walker can make no rational 

argument on the law or facts in support of the issues raised on 

appeal, which is required in order to proceed in forma pauperis. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3368 Document: 010110254347 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 2
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 

3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3368 Document: 010110254347 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 3