* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### JUL 14 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
CORTEZ EDWARD WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-1192
v. (D. Colorado) ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, CARL ZENON, DONICE NEAL, RANDY FOSHEE, DENNIS BURBANK, LARRY REID, VICKIE RIDDLE, JUDY LINDSEY, JACKIE JONES, M. WEBB, C. STARCER, J. LUSK, W. LEHMAN, J. HALSTEAD, MIKE VERRANO, D. DIEDRICH, L. STOUDT, C. SHANNON., F. RUYBALID, J. DALTON,

Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 98-Z-1981)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Pro se appellant Cortez Edward Walker, currently in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections at the Colorado State Penitentiary at Canon City, Colorado, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action alleging various constitutional violations, including that he was de nied access to the law library and the courts, that he was denied due process in a n administrative segregation hearing, that he was denied freedom of speech, thatprison authorities interfered with his legal mail, and that he was subject to ret aliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The district court dismiss ed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as legally frivolous, anddenied Mr. Walker’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Mr. Walker has filed several motions in this court: a motion entitled “Requesting a hearing for the Defendant’s interferi ng with Plaintiff legal matters, and ask for a court order for more access to law-li brary” and a motion “Requesting that the Court of Appeals review the di strict court file in case numbers 97-S-2347 and 98-D-1981 to show cause.” W e have carefully reviewed the record and pleadings in this case, and, for sub stantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated April 9, 1999, we find Mr. Walker’s claims to be meritless. Additionally, we conclude this appeal i s frivolous and we therefore-3-

DISMISS it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We deny his pending motions. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint andour dismissal of this appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, ___ (10th Cir. 1999). Our own research of the record reveals that Mr. Walker has had at least two previous actions dismissed for failure to state a claim. Ac cordingly, he now has at least four strikes against him. We direct the clerk of this court not to accept fr om Mr. Walker any future filings of extraordinary writs innoncriminal matters or appeals of judgment in civil actions or proceedings unless he first pays the applicable filing fees, except in those instances that Mr. Wal ker’s filings claim that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge