*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 24 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOAQUIN L. CRAYTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

STEPHEN W. KAISER; JANET

BRYANT; MR. MOODY,

Maintenance Supervisor of DCF;

KATHY MILLER; CONSTANCE SUE

YORK HOUGHTON, Personal

Representative of the Estate of Dr.

Michael A. Houghton, Deceased,

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 00-7047

(E. District of Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. 99-CV-154)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
1Crayton’s request for a 30-day extension to file his reply brief is hereby

DENIED . This court is able to reach a reasoned disposition of this appeal based

upon our review of the parties primary briefs and the entire appellate record.

-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This court

therefore honors the parties’ requests and orders the case submitted without oral

argument.

Joaquin L. Crayton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. In his civil

rights complaint, Crayton asserted numerous constitutional and pendent state law

claims arising out of a slip-and-fall in his prison cell caused by a leak in the

ceiling of his housing unit. The district court dismissed Crayton’s complaint as

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), concluding that in light of the

vague and conclusory allegations contained therein, Crayton’s complaint lacked

an arguable basis either in law or fact.

This court reviews the district court’s dismissal of Crayton’s complaint as

frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion. See McWilliams v.

Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997). Upon review of the entire

record in this case, including the parties’ briefs and contentions on appeal,1

 we

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Crayton’s

complaint as frivolous. Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s

order of dismissal for substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s
2Because Crayton paid in full his entire appellate filing fee at the onset of

this appeal, this court’s disposition of his appeal cannot count as a strike. See

Stafford v. United States , 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Here,

appellant did not proceed under the IFP scheme, but paid the full filing fee at the

outset. Thus, § 1915(e)(2), with its screening procedure for dismissing IFP

appeals that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek monetary relief from immune

defendants, or rest on false allegations of poverty, is not applicable.”).

-3-

order dated March 29, 2000. In so doing, we note that the district court’s

dismissal of Crayton’s complaint as frivolous counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).2 See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility, 175

F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999). This court reminds Crayton that after a prisoner

acquires three “strikes” he must prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts

may consider his civil action or appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Jennings, 175

F.3d at 778. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge