* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, exceptunder the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 16 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARVIN BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO DISTRICT COURT CLERKS; VICKI F. AKENHEAD, Managing Reporter; ANNETTE G. ARAGON, Official Court Reporter; and VIOLA W. LEWIS, Official Court Reporter, Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-2291 (D.C. No. CIV-96-968-JC/RLP)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Proceeding pro se, Marvin Brown appeals the distric t court’s dismissal of his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).- 2 -

We affirm. Marvin Brown’s initial pro se complaint, construed liberally as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, contended that he needed certain tran scripts of an August 1992 hearing in his criminal action in order to file a p etition for habeas corpus, and that the transcripts he received from the defendant court reporters did not accurately reflect all of the conversations during the hearing . Brown asserted that the court reporters purposefully left out portions of the pro ceedings to protect the judge from “incriminating actions” taken during the heari ng. The district court dismissed the complaint under Ru le 12(b)(6), but we vacated and remanded in Brown v. New Mexico Court C lerks , No. 97-2044, 1998 WL 123064 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 1998) (unpublished di sposition). First, we noted that “Plaintiff’s complaint did not reveal the natu re of the hearing in question, what was allegedly omitted from the transcripts, why the omission is necessary to decide his habeas petition or how the alleged omiss ions or inaccuracies in his transcript adversely affected him.” Id. , 1998 WL 123064, at *2. Furthermore, we observed that Brown’s “constitutional rights would be violated only if inaccuracies in the transcript adversely affected t he outcome of the criminal proceeding,” and that Brown “has not alleged facts indicating how the alleged inaccuracies in his transcript prejudiced him.” Id

. , 1998 WL 123064, at *3. However, because “pro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to1 The district court assumed for purposes of its opin ion that the hearing took

place. - 3 - remedy defects in their pleadings,” Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991), we vacated the district court ord er and remanded for the district court to afford Brown “an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure any deficiencies.” Brown , 1998 WL 123064, at *3. On remand, Brown submitted an amended complaint all eging various inaccuracies and omissions in the transcript of the August 1992 hearing, during which the district court considered two motions—one by Brown for a funeral furlough, and one by the State for probation revocation. Additionally, Brown alleged that an unspecified portion of the transcri pt from a May 3, 1993, release hearing incorporated an excerpt from another releas e hearing held on May 27, 1993, which Brown alleges took place but which Defe ndant Akenhead maintains never occurred. 1 Brown also complained of the lack of a transcriptfrom the May 27, 1993, hearing. The district court found that Brown’s amended compl aint failed to show how “the outcome of habeas proceedings [would] be a ffected by an ‘accurate’ written record of the statements Defendants have al legedly altered and withheld.” Thus, the district court dismissed Brown’s amended complaint for failure to state2 Brown also raised nine claims not alleged in his or iginal complaint. The

district court dismissed the nine additional claims as frivolous because they were barred by res judicata, as they were asserted and d ismissed in two prior consolidated proceedings before the district court. We upheld the dismissal in Brown v. McAllister , No. 97-2035, 1998 WL 123065 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 1 998) (unpublished disposition). Brown’s response to the district court’s dismissal of the nine additional claims, that “all claims in tho se cases were Granted and upheld,” is meritless and not deserving of further comment. - 4 - a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2 On appeal, Brown does not respond to the district c ourt’s finding that he did not allege how the altered or withheld transcri pts would prejudice the outcome of habeas proceedings. Rather, Brown asks us to “order the Transcript of [the May 27, 1993] Hearing to determine if any c onstitutional rights was [sic] violated,” and to take similar investigatory action with regard to the other transcripts. We refuse to grant Brown’s request, as we are a cou rt of review, not an investigatory service for § 1983 litigants. Cf. Witney v. New Mexico , 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (“This court . . . w ill not supply additional factual allegations to round out a [pro se] plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.”) Furthermore, we find Br own’s appeal, based on such requests, to be frivolous for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Brown’s am ended complaint for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum O pinion and Order, which we- 5 -

find persuasive. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge