Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03251/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03251-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kansas Department of Corrections
Appellee
Willie James Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPRALS . F I L E D 

-crm?M Scates Court of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIE JAMES WILLIAMS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appel lee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Tenth Ci!'cuit 

FEB 15 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3251 

(D.C. No. 90-3220-S) 

(D. Kansas) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Willie James Williams filed a pro se 42 u.s.c. 

S 1983 action in the district court, alleging that the Kansas 

Department of Corrections failed to provide him information on his 

conviction and institutional record. Attached to his complaint 

was a memorandum from a prison official notifying him, pursuant to 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3251 Document: 010110099992 Date Filed: 02/15/1991 Page: 1 
his request, of the number of his case, the name of the sentencing 

judge, his sentence, the charges of which he had been convicted, 

his parole eligibility date, and when he would be entitled to a 

hearing before the Kansas Parole Board. Also attached was a 

memorandum letter from Legal Services for Prisoners containing 

some of the same information. 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's action because he 

failed to allege any deprivation of his constitutional rights. 

The district court also denied leave to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis, and the case is before us on a renewed motion for leave 

to appeal in forma pauperis. After reviewing the record and the 

motion, we deny plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without 

prepayment of costs and dismiss the appeal because plaintiff has 

not presented any rational argument on the law and facts which can 

support a viable claim on the issues raised in the appeal in its 

present posture. 

(1962). 

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3251 Document: 010110099992 Date Filed: 02/15/1991 Page: 2