* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### April 26, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LESTER WILLIAM NORTONSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1390

v. (D.C. No. 05-CV-01041-ZLW) LARIMER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, State of Colorado; MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, State of Colorado; MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, State of Arizona; EL PASO COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; State of Texas; COURT CLERKS OF EL PASO COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, State of Texas; COURT CLERKS OF MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, State of Arizona; COURT CLERKS OF MESA COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, State of Colorado, (D. Colo.)

Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY, andLUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has-2-

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Lester William Nortonsen is a prisoner in the Colorado State Penitentiary. He filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 c omplaint alleging that Appellees had unconstitutionally denied him free co pies of court transcripts and other documents that he claims Appellees possessed. He wishes to access the transcripts and documents to pursue post-conviction relief in state court. He also seeks money damages for depriving him of the copies . The district court dismissed Mr. Nortonsen’s claim as legally frivolou s and denied him leave to appeal because, the court held, Mr. Nortonsen “ha[d ] not shown the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and fact s in support of the issues to be raised on appeal.” Order Denying Leave to Proce ed on Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. App. P. 24, 1 (D. Colo. N ov. 1, 2005). As the district court noted, indigent prisoners see king postconviction collateral relief do not have an automatic right to free copies of court transcripts and documents. Order and Judgment of Dismissal, 3 (D. Colo. Aug. 5, 2005). Criminal defendants have an absolute right to a tri al transcript for direct appeals, but, if they are seeking postconviction collateral relief, they must first demonstrate a nonfrivolous claim. Ruark v. Gunter , 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10th Cir.-3-

1992) (per curiam). Because the district court, applying 28 U.S.C. § 19 15, denied Mr. Nortonsen leave to appeal, we must first address hi s challenge of this denial. While we have not yet determined whether the standa rd of review of an order denying leave to appeal under § 1915 is de novo or abuse of discretion, we would reach the same decision under either standard in th is case. See Plunk v. Givens , 234 F.3d 1128, 1130 (10th Cir. 2000). We have care fully reviewed Mr. Nortonsen’s brief, the district court’s orders, and the record on appeal, and for substantially similar reasons to the those laid outby the district court in its August 5, 2005 and November 1, 2005 orders, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Nortonsen’s claim and the districtcourt’s denial of leave to appeal. We grant Mr. Nortonsen’s motion to proceed without prepayment of the appellate filing fee, but we remind him of his cont inuing obligation to make partial payments until the entire fee has been paid

. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge