T hi s orderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof l awof * th ec a s e , res ju dica ta and coll aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favors the citati on of o rd e r s an dj u d g me nt s ; n e v e rth e l e s s , ano rd e ran dj u d g me ntmayb ec ite dun d e rth ete rms and conditi ons of 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly18,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT DAVI D J . GI L BR E AT H, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. D U N C A N K . C L A R K ; Su p erv isor I, S a d d l e S h o p ; GE OR GE UHL AND, Su p e r v i s o rI I I , Sa d d l e Sh o p ; CA SEY H I B B S, Super vi s orI , Saddl e Shop; ANT HONY A . DE CE S AR O, G r i evanc e O ffi cerC ol or ado De p a r t me n to f

Co r r e c t i o n s ; J OHN SU T H E R S, A t t or neyG ener al , St at e of C ol or ado, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1380 ( D . C ol or ado) ( D . C t . N o . 0 5 - C V - 9 1 8 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se isW ec o n s tru ep ro s ep le a d in g s lib e ra lly. Ledbetterv. Ci t y of Topeka, Kan . , 318 2 F . 3 d1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).

- 2- th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. I . B ackgr ound D avi d J . G i l br eath, a s t at e pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , fi l ed a pr i s oner 2 compl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 al l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar i s i ng fr om hi s t erm i nat i on fr om a pr i s on j ob. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed t h e c o mp l a i n ta s “ l e g a l l yf r i v o l o u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) . ” ( R. D o c . 5 a t 4 .) G ilb re a th th e n filed a n o tice o f a p p e a l an d a m o tio n fo r le a v e to pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris ( ifp ) on appea l . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a )(3 ), fin d in g th e a p p e a l w a s n o t tak e n in g o o d fa ith beca us e G i l br eath had not“s how n t he exi s t ence of a r eas oned, nonfr i vol ous ar gum enton t he l aw and fa ct s i n s uppor tof the i s s ues r ai s ed on appe al . ” ( R . D oc. 11. ) G i l br eath has fi l ed w i t h t hi s C our ta combi ned mot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d ifp a n d o p e n in g b ri e f. See F ED . R. A PP . P . 2 4 (a)(5). W e D E N Y G il b rea th’s m ot i on forl eave t o pr ocee d ifp a n d A F F I R M. I I . D i s cus s i on A . T i m el i nes s of appe al A tt he out s et , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der t hi s m at t er . T he t i m el yfi l i ng of a not i ce of appea l i s “mandat or yand j ur i s di ct i onal . ” B udi ni ch v. B ecton D i cki ns on & Co. , 4 8 6 U .S . 1 9 6 , 2 0 3 (1 9 8 8 ).- 3-

T h e o rd e r d is m is s in g G ilb re a th ’s § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n w a s e n te re d o n J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 5 . G i l b r e a t h ’ s n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l w a s n o tfi l e d u n t i l A u g u s t1 6 , 2 0 0 5 , p a s tt h e t h i r t yd a ytim e lim it se t fo rth in R u le 4 (a )(1 )(A ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P r o c e d u r e . W h i l e a tfi r s tb l u s h i ta p p e a r s t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s u n t i m e l y, appl i cat i on of R ul e 58 of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e l eads t o t he contr aryconcl us i on. R ul e 58 r equi r es everyj udgm entt o “be s etfor t h on a s epar at e document . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 58( a) ( 1) . I n t hi s cas e, al t hough t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derw as ent er ed on J ul y1, 2005, no s epar at e j udgm entw as fi l ed. B eca us e the di s t r i ct c o u rt’s o rd e r c o n tain e d d e taile d leg a l an a ly sis , itd id n o t sa tisf yth e re q u ire m e n ts o f a ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 5 8 . See C l ou gh v. R ush , 9 5 9 F . 2 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 (10 th C ir . 1992) . B e c a u s e a s e p a ra te ju d g m e n t w a s n o t file d , R u le 5 8 (b )( 2 )( B ) i s tr ig g e re d . U nderR ul e 58( b) ( 2) ( B ) , a j udgm enti s deemed ent er ed w i t hi n 150 day s fr om entr yof the or deri n t he ci vi l docket . G i l br eath’ s not i ce of appea l w as fi l ed w i t h i n t h i s t i m e f

r a m e a n d t h u s i s t i m e l y. B . D i s m i s s al of § 1983 ac t i on W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on of fr i vol ous nes s under§ 1915 fo r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . D ent on v. Her nandez , 5 0 4 U . S . 2 5 , 3 3 (19 9 2 ); Templ em an v. G unt er , 16 F. 3d 367, 369 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . A compl ai ntm aybe deemed fr i vol ous “w her e i tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s ei t heri n l aw ori n fac t . ” Ne i tz ke v . Wi l l i a ms , 490 U . S. 319, 325 ( 1989) . L egal l yfr i vol ous cl ai m s i ncl ude- 4-

“cl ai m s of i nfr i ngementof a l egal i nt er es tw hi ch cl ear l ydoes notexi s t . ” Id . at 327. T h e d istric t co u rt ru led G ilb re a th w a s n o t d e p riv e d o f a c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted lib e rtyo r p ro p e rtyin ter e st in th e ter m in a tio n o f h is p riso n e m p lo ym e n t. T he courtw as corr ecti n i t s rul i ng. T he l aw i s cl ear : a pr i s onerdoes nothave a p ro te c te d lib e rt yin te re s t in h is p ri s o n jo b . P enrodv. Zava ras, 94 F. 3d 1399, 1407 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . Fur t herm or e, pr i s on gr i evanc e pr ocedur es do not“gi ve r i s e t o a pr ot ect ed l i ber t yi nt er es tr equi r i ng t he pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons envi s i oned byt he fourt eenth amendm ent . ” B uckl ey v . B ar l ow , 9 9 7 F . 2 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 5 (8th C ir . 1993) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he defendant s ’ al l eged fai l ur e t o fol l ow pr i s on rul es i n t erm i nat i ng G i l br eath fr om hi s j ob di d noti m pos e an “ atypi cal and s i gni fi cant har ds hi p . . . i n r el at i on t o t he or di naryi nci dent s of pr i s on l i fe, ” and thus di d not im p lic a te d u e p ro c e s s c o n s id e ra tio n s . Sandi n v. C onner , 515 U . S. 472, 484 (19 9 5 ). AF F I RMED . T h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th e a p p e a l w a s n o t tak e n in g o o d fa ith p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 1915( a) ( 3) . A ft err evi ew i ng G i l br eath’ s cont ent i ons , and gi vi ng w e ig h t to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n , w e a g re e . C oppedge v . Uni t ed Stat es , 369 U . S. 438, 446 ( 1962) . G i l br eath’ s appea l i s “w i t houtm er i ti n t hati tl acks an ar guabl e bas i s i n ei t herl aw orfac t . ” Thomps on v. G i bs on , 289 F. 3d 1218, 1222 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) . W e D E N Y G i l br eath’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d ifp a n d o rd e r h im to- 5-

re m it th e f

u ll a m o u n t o f

th e filin g fe e w ith in tw e n ty d a y s . K i nnel lv. G r aves , 265 F. 3d 1125, 1129 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( di s m i s s al of an a ppeal does notr el i eve ap p ell an t of

o b li g ati o n to p ayap p ell ate fil ing fe e in f u ll ). T h e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f G ilb re a th ’s c o m p lain t as f riv o lo u s c o u n ts as a s t r i ke pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) . G i l br eath i s r emi nded thati f he acc rues t hr ee s t r i kes , he w i l l no l ongerbe abl e t o pr ocee d ifp i n anyci vi l act i on fi l e d i n a fe d e r a l c o u r tu n l e s s h e i s i n i m m i n e n td a n g e ro f s e r i o u s p h ys i c a l i nj u r y. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge