* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral 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 

### 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, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of1 Crayton’s request for a 30-day extension to file hi s reply brief is hereby

DENIED . This court is able to reach a reasoned dispositi on of this appeal based upon our review of the parties primary briefs and t he entire appellate record. -2- this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T his 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 rig hts complaint. In his civil rights complaint, Crayton asserted numerous constitutional and pendent state law claims arising out of a slip-and-fall in his prisoncell caused by a leak in the ceiling of his housing unit. The district court di smissed 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 o f 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 revi ew 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 discr etion 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’s2 Because Crayton paid in full his entire appellate f iling 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, butpaid the full filing fee at the outset. Thus, § 1915(e)(2), with its screening pro cedure 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 t hat the district court’s dismissal of Crayton’s complaint as frivolous count s 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