* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicat a, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order andjudgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Ci r. R. 36.3.

1 Although we agree with the district court that Perk ins’ 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 t herefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Darren Eugene Perkins (Perkins), appearing prose , appeals the district court’s Order of January 30, 1996, denyinghis civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1formapauperis 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 Cor rectional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. In his civil rights complaint, Perkins alleged that he was denied his right to rel igious freedom when prison officials applied money he received fro m his mother toward outstanding fines. Perkins alleges that his Christmas was “ruined” because the $40.00 his mother sent on Nove mber 11, 1995, and the $36.00 his mother sent on December 5, 1995, were for religious purposes, i.e., his enjoyment and celebra tion 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 t he prison officials was consistent with the terms announced f or the holiday account program in a November 7, 1995, letter to al l inmates and that the unintentional failure of Perkins’ mother t o comply with the terms of the program did not implicate Perkins’ right to religious freedom. Therefore, the district court d ismissed Perkins’ claim for failure to state a claim for rel ief. 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 arg ues 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 Sec retarty of Health & Human Servs. , 53 F.3d 1173, 1174 (10th Cir. 1995). We will uphold a dismissal only when it appears that t he pleadings can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief, accepting all well-pleadedallegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the li ght most favorable to the plaintiff. Roman v. Cessna Aircra ft Co. , 55 F.3d 542, 543 (10th Cir. 1995). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth i n the district court’s Order of January 30, 1996.
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett, Senior United States Circuit Judge