Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03153/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Cooling
Appellee
Steven Davies
Appellee
Roger D. Davis
Appellant
John W. Dickson
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Roger Endell
Appellee
D.B. Herrington
Appellee
Jamie Langer
Appellee
Herb Maschner
Appellee
Ray Roberts
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL cited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROGER D. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHN COOLING; JAMIE LANGER; 

HERB MASCHNER; JOHN W. DICKSON; 

RAY ROBERTS; STEVEN DAVIES; 

D.B. HERRINGTON; JOHN DOE; 

ROGER ENDELL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

NOV 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3153 

(D.C. No. 90-3118-S) 

(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. 

Plaintiff Roger D. Davis filed a prose 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

action in district court alleging a conspiracy between various 

prison officials and others in Kansas and North Carolina involved 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, e xcept 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3153 Document: 010110051374 Date Filed: 11/28/1990 Page: 1 
' 

in transporting plaintiff from Kansas to North Carolina against 

his wishes for the disposition of criminal charges pending there. 

Plaintiff asserted that his rights pursuant to the Interstate 

Agreement on Detainers and the Uniform Extradition Act were 

violated as well as his constitutional rights under the Due 

Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourth, Fifth, and 

Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the action on 

grounds that the applicable two-year statute of limitations had 

run, because all of the actions affecting plaintiff occurred more 

than two years before suit was filed. 

The court denied leave to proceed on appeal in forrna pauperis 

and the case is before us on his renewed motion before us for 

leave to appeal in forrna pauperis. After reviewing the record and 

the motion, we deny the motion for leave to proceed without 

prepayment of costs or fees and dismiss the appeal because there 

is no nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts which plaintiff 

can make that would support a cause of action not barred by the 

statute of limitations. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 

438 (1962). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3153 Document: 010110051374 Date Filed: 11/28/1990 Page: 2