Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03325/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03325-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven J. Davies
Appellee
Bill Rich
Appellee
Ray Roberts
Appellee
William F. Schlicher
Appellant
Chuck Simmons
Appellee

Document Text:

' 

UNITED. STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM F. SCHLICHER, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellant, } 

} 

No. 89-3325 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 12 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

CJerk 

v. } 

} 

STEVEN J. DAVIES; RAY ROBERTS;} 

BILL RICH; and CHUCK SIMMONS, } 

} 

(D. C. No. 89-3458-S} 

( D. Kan.} 

Defendants-Appellees. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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(1}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Appellant, Mr. Schlicher, is an inmate at the Kansas State 

Penitentiary. Mr. Schlicher filed with the United States District 

* 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: 89-3325 Document: 010110036183 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 1 
' 

Court . what he apparently believes to be a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. The petition borders on being incomprehensible. 

The thrust of the petition is that he should not have to do any 

work while incarcerated. 

The district court read the complaint as alleging objections 

to the practice of prison officials punishing inmates for refusing 

to work on assigned work details. The district court determined 

that no claim was stated and dismissed the action pursuant to 28 

u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

Mr. Schlicher appeals this decision to this court. His 

assertions of error to this court consist of rambling conclusions 

having nothing to do with the specifics of the district court's 

order. Illustrative of Mr. Schlicher's issues and contentions are 

such statements as: "A prisoner, such as Plaintiff, can 'decline' 

such moves and 'jobs' without punishment .... Finally that ex post 

facto/bill of attainder cannot be entered under any guise to force 

labor/punishment upon an imprisoned person." 

Prison officials do not violate a prisoner's rights by 

requiring him to work at an assigned prison job. Ray v. Mabry, 

556 F.2d 881, 882 (8th Cir. 1977). 

We have reviewed the record on appeal and Mr. Schlicher's 

brief and conclude that no rational argument can be made on the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3325 Document: 010110036183 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 2 
law or facts in support of a claim for relief. We furthermore 

conclude the appeal is fri~olous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). 

Liberally construing Mr. Schlicher's complaint, as we must, 

we note the general thrust of his complaint is prison conditions. 

We therefore also construe the complaint as one founded upon 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and reach the same result for the same reasons. 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-3325 Document: 010110036183 Date Filed: 06/12/1990 Page: 3