Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03244/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03244-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven J. Davies
Appellee
Jim Elliott
Appellant
Ray Roberts
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

FILED 

Oniced States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirr. 1 , .. APPEALS __ ,. 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT MAR .. 2 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

JIM ELLIOTT, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STEVEN J. DAVIES and 

RAY ROBERTS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3244 

(D.C. No. 89-3251-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. 

This matter is before the court on appellant's motion for 

leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. 

In order to succeed on his motion, appellant must show the following: (1) a financial inability to pay the required filing fees 

* 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: 89-3244 Document: 01019965779 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 1 
and (2) that he has made "a rational argument on the law or 

facts.'' Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962); 

Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962); see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1015(a) (1982). 

Appellant filed the underlying suit against defendants for a 

writ of habeas corpus claiming unconstitutional conditions in his 

confinement at the Kansas State Penitentiary. He sought damages 

and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1982). The 

district court reviewed appellant's complaint and entered an order 

requiring appellant to supplement his petition. After reviewing 

appellant's supplemental pleading, the court determined that the 

action was frivolous and dismissed it under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d} 

(1982). In so doing, the court said that appellant's allegations 

were "vague and conclusory and fail[ed] to demonstrate any 

personal participation on the part of [defendants]." Order, 

August 25, 1987, at 1- 2. 

In his supplemental pleading, appellant alleged that ''on or 

about 9/20/88 defendants by agent Linden Appel told plaintiff that 

despite rules he couldn't be granted access to any legal library 

or helps.'' Record, Supplemental Pleading, July 25, 1989, at 1. 

Appellant also alleged that he had been "repeatedly addressed, 

threatened and harassed by orders of defendants that he is to 

cease all legal proceedings and send all legal materials out or 

Linden Appela and J.M. Barkley are to seize and destroy them." 

Id. at 2. Construing broadly this prose complaint, we conclude 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3244 Document: 01019965779 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 2 
that the allegations quoted above are sufficiently specific to 

raise an issue of denial of access to the courts being done at the 

direction of the named defendants. We hold, therefore, that on 

this record, appellant's action cannot be dismissed as frivolous 

under section 1915(d). In so doing, we note that: 

It is not the burden of the petitioner to show that his 

appeal has merit, in the sense that he is bound, or even 

likely, to prevail ultimately. He is to be heard, as is 

any appellant in a criminal case, if he makes a rational 

argument on the law or facts. 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 448 (1962). 

We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal. 

Appellant's motion to proceed without prepayment of costs is 

granted, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3244 Document: 01019965779 Date Filed: 03/02/1990 Page: 3