Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03407/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03407-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Coleman
Appellee
Judy Gift
Appellee
Curtis Moore
Appellant
Leo Lee Taylor
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT F IL .. . J 

CURTIS MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LEO LEE TAYLOR, JUDY GIFT, DAVID 

COLEMAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

United States C01:r·t of Appealf Tenth Cireuit 

~ FEB 2 2 1993 

~ ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) No. 92-Gleok 

) (D.C. No. 92-C-3386-DES) 

) (Dist. of Kan.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore 

Curtis Moore (Moore) , appearing prose, appeals from an order 

of the district court dismissing his c ivil rights complaint filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finding Moore's appeal frivolous 

and not taken in good faith, the district court denied Moore leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

* 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: 92-3407 Document: 010110175836 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 1 
In order to succeed on his motion to proceed without 

prepayment of fees and costs, Moore must show both the financial 

inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a 

reasoned, non-frivolous argument on the law and facts in support 

of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Coppedge 

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox 305 F.2d 58 

(10th Cir. 1962). We affirm the district court's denial of leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis. However, in order to reach the 

merits, we grant the petition for a certificate of probable cause. 

Moore, an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility, El 

Dorado, Kansas, filed a complaint under § 1983 against several 

employees of the Department of Corrections. Moore alleged that 

the employees violated his civil rights when they refused his 

requests to take two weeks off from school and to take an 

emergency furlough to attend his brother's funeral. 

The district court, after determining that Moore's claims 

related only to institutional programming and the denial of a 

request to attend a funeral, found that the claims presented no 

arguable basis for imposing liability on the named defendants and 

dismissed Moore's complaint as frivolous and malicious under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

On appeal, Moore repeats his bald allegations that the 

actions of the employees were in violation of his due process and 

equal protection rights and constituted cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3407 Document: 010110175836 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 2 
We have reviewed the entire record and agree with the 

district court that Moore's complaint should be dismissed as 

frivolous and malicious under§ 1915(d). We AFFIRM the district 

court's Order dismissing Moore's civil rights action substantially 

for the reasons set forth in the district court's Order of October 

29, 1992, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part 

hereof. The mandate shall issue for thwith . 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3407 Document: 010110175836 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 3 
r--l 

AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

CURTIS MOORE, 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

~, CF.REG Oi,I fHE DOCKE 

lJA TE. ID 1 '1 r. :i.._ 

r l ltlJ 

U.S. fJI S1 RI Cl COUlU 

o 15 n· : : 1 0 r ld . 11 s A s 

Der 29 9 2s ~H '92 

RM ;· .. CH. 

t' 

BY C~c/tit.f:...'Y .il[PUTY 

A r , 1. ; L " 9,. KS. 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 92-3386-DES 

LEO LEE TAYLOR, et al., 

Defendants. ) ____________________ ) 

0 R D E R 

This matter is before the court on a civil rights 

complaint filed pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. Plaintiff, who 

proceeds prose in this matter, has filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 28 u.s.c . § 1915 . On 

October 14, 1992, the court allowed plaintiff to file this action 

without prepayment of fees or costs. The purpose of this order is 

to determine whether this matter should be dismissed as frivolous or 

malicious pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

Under § 1915 (d), a court may dismiss a complaint sua 

sponte where it presents "a claim on an indisputably meritless legal 

theory," such as a "claim[ J of infringement of a legal interest 

which clearly does not exist." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S . 319, 

327 (1989 ) . 

Further, § 1915 (d) per mits a court "the unusual power to 

pie r ce the veil of the c omplaint's fa c tua l a llegations and dismiss 

those c lai ms whose f actua l a l legations are clear ly b asele ss," suc h 

as thos e "describing fantastic or d e lus ional s c enarios.'' Nei t zke, 

490 U.S. a t 32 7-28 ; McK inney v . Oklahoma, 925 F . 2d 363 , 365 (10th 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-3407 Document: 010110175836 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 4 
DES:RL 

AO 72A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

Cir. 1991). 

Having examined the complaint, the court concludes the 

claims asserted therein are legally frivolous. Plaintiff has 

asserted only bald claims of due process and equal protection 

violations and cruel and unusual punishment. The claims presented 

in the complaint form refer to administrative decisions regarding 

plaintiff's institutional programming and the denial of a request to 

attend a funeral. The attachments to the complaint, however, 

reflect disciplinary reports prepared charging plaintiff with 

assault on two staff members. Even permitting plaintiff the liberal 

construc tion to which his prose pleadings are entitled, the court 

finds no arguable basis is presented for imposing liability on the 

named defendants. Accordingly, the court concludes this matter is 

appropriately dismissed under§ 1915(d) as frivolous and malicious. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this matter is hereby dismissed 

and all relief is de nied. 

The clerk of the court is directed to transmit a copy of 

this Order to plaintiff. 1i. 

DATED: This ,';21 d ay of October, 1992 at Topeka, Kansas. 

~~DLEE. SAFFELS O te 1⁄4" United states District Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3407 Document: 010110175836 Date Filed: 02/22/1993 Page: 5