UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ROBERT W. WINKEL, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

GEOFFERY HAMMOND, MD, Medical 

Director, Larned State Hospital, in his 

individual capacity; DILIP PATEL, MD, 

Larned State Hospital, in his individual 

capacity; JOHN DOE, MD, Larned State 

Hospital, in his individual capacity, a/k/a 

(FNU) Oleachea; JOHN DOES, at least six 

unknown John Does, security and other 

staff, Larned State Hospital, in their 

individual capacities, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

No. 14-3191 

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-03032-SAC) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

 *

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 4, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
-2 

 Appellant Robert Winkel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action with the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas against numerous medical personnel and staff at Larned State 

Hospital. He alleges that defendants all played a role in involuntarily administering 

medication to him to make him competent to stand trial, violating various 

constitutional rights. 

 The district court examined Appellant’s claims and found them to be 

duplicative of claims he raised in another action in the same court, Case No. 5:13-

CV-03103-SAC, Winkel v. Hammond, et al. The court dismissed the present action 

as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and this appeal followed. 

Appellant agrees this action is essentially identical to his first § 1983 case, 

which he voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in September 2013. In February 

2014, he filed a motion to reopen that case. While the motion was being considered 

by the district court, he filed this second action. Appellant was apparently afraid the 

district court would deny the motion to reopen the action which he voluntarily 

dismissed in September 2013, and his time to refile the dismissed action would 

elapse in the meantime. 

We review a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for an abuse of 

discretion. See Schlicher v. Thomas, 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997). After 

examining the briefs and the record in this case, we agree it essentially duplicates claims 

Appellant made in the earlier case filed in June 2013, which is currently pending review 

on the merits after the district court granted Appellant’s motion to reopen. “Repetitious 
-3 

litigation of virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed under § 1915 as 

frivolous or malicious.” McWilliams v. State of Colo., 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir. 

1997) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 

We accordingly find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to 

dismiss Appellant’s duplicative action, regardless of his reason for filing it, and 

AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of this case. The district court granted 

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and we remind him of 

his obligation to continue making partial payments until the entire filing fee has been 

paid in full. Appellant’s “Motion to Compel” is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge