Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03018/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy Carol Sisler
Appellee
Robert Lee Sisler
Appellant

Document Text:

FI LED 

U<lited Scares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 6 1990 

AOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT LEE SISLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NANCY CAROL SISLER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

No. 90-3018 

(D.C. No. 89-3502S) 

(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 plaintiff-appellant Robert 

Lee Sisler's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

Plaintiff brought suit against Nancy Carol Sisler, apparently 

a relative, for allegedly forging his signature to a check for 

* 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: 90-3018 Document: 010110038747 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 1 
$51.30, asserting that this supported a suit under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983. 

Section 1983 requires both that the defendant being sued 

acted under color of state law, which means that she must have 

been an employee of a state or local government or otherwise was 

somehow a state actor, and that the cause of action be a violation 

of the U.S. Constitution or other federal law. Because the 

complaint failed to meet either of these two requirements, the 

district court dismissed and denied leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. We are in full agreement with the district court. 

In order to succeed on his motion, plaintiff-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: 90-3018 Document: 010110038747 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 2 
3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3018 Document: 010110038747 Date Filed: 07/26/1990 Page: 3