*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Cir. R. 36.3.

1 Although we agree with the district court that Perkins’

appeal is legally frivolous, we grant Perkins leave to proceed in

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/3/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

______

DARREN EUGENE PERKINS, )

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 96-3045

) (D.C. No. 96-3039-GTV)

LES DERSTEIN, Unit Manager; BETH ) (Dist. of Kan.)

POSSEY, Accounting; MICHAEL NELSON,)

Warden; WILLIAM CUMMINGS, Risk )

Management, )

)

Defendants-Appellees. )

______

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

______

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

______

After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Darren Eugene Perkins (Perkins), appearing pro se, appeals the

district court’s Order of January 30, 1996, denying his civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1
forma pauperis and grant a certificate of probable cause simply

to reach the merits of the case.

- 2 -

Perkins is currently an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional

Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. In his civil rights complaint,

Perkins alleged that he was denied his right to religious freedom

when prison officials applied money he received from his mother

toward outstanding fines. Perkins alleges that his Christmas was

“ruined” because the $40.00 his mother sent on November 11, 1995,

and the $36.00 his mother sent on December 5, 1995, were for

religious purposes, i.e., his enjoyment and celebration of

Christmas, and, therefore, were to be placed in his holiday account

and not used to pay fines.

The district court found that the action taken by the prison

officials was consistent with the terms announced for the holiday

account program in a November 7, 1995, letter to all inmates and

that the unintentional failure of Perkins’ mother to comply with

the terms of the program did not implicate Perkins’ right to

religious freedom. Therefore, the district court dismissed

Perkins’ claim for failure to state a claim for relief. 

On appeal, Perkins contends that the district court did not

apply any law and refused to rule according to the November 7,

1995, letter regarding the holiday program. He argues that the

district court failed to examine all of the grounds on which relief

can be granted.
- 3 -

On appeal, we review a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(c) on the pleadings just as we do a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss. Estate of Washington v. United States Secretarty of

Health & Human Servs., 53 F.3d 1173, 1174 (10th Cir. 1995). We

will uphold a dismissal only when it appears that the pleadings can

prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle

the plaintiff to relief, accepting all well-pleaded allegations of

the complaint as true and construing them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Roman v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d

542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995).

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the

district court’s Order of January 30, 1996.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett,

Senior United States

Circuit Judge