UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________ _______________ DWAUNE J. GRAVLEY,

Plaintiff- Appellant,

v. LARRY HUNTER, CEO of Direct TV; RANDALL STEPHENSON, CEO of AT&T; JEFFREY ZUCKER, “Jeff” President of CNN; PHILIP T. GRIFFIN, “Phil” President of MSNBC; RUPERT MURDOCH, CEO of Fox News; CHRIS MCCARTHY, President of VH1; GEORGE BODENHEIMER, CEO, and Acting Chairman of ESPN; BRIAN ROAPP, CEO of NFL Networks; BERNARDO GOMEZ, Co-CEO of Televisa; ALFONSO DE ANGOITIA, Co-CEO of Televisa; SEAN L. ATKINS, President of MTV; STEPHEN B. BURKE, CEO of NBC; BEN SHERWOOD, CEO of ABC; JOHN K. MARTIN, CEO and Current Chairman of TNT; JOHN LANDGRAF, CEO of FX Networks; PAUL RYAN, House Speaker; and ALL OTHER CEO'S, of the unnamed channels provided by Prison Admax, Flor ence Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. No. 18-1246 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-00171-LTB) (D. Colo.) FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 18, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 __________________ _______________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

__________________ _______________ Before BACHARACH , MURPHY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

__________________ _______________ In this suit, Mr. Dwaune J. Gravl ey alleges that television net works and public figures are secretly “ branding” him as a sexual pred ator. According to Mr. Gravley, he discovered this branding by deciph ering a

secret code used on televi sion. The district court sua sponte dismissed the suit as frivolous, lead ing Mr. Gravley to a ppeal and move for l eave to proceed in forma pauperis. We di smiss the appeal and deny the m otion. Because Mr. Gravley proceeded in forma pauperis in district cou rt,

the court must dismiss the suit or the appeal if it is frivolou s. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A s uit or appeal is frivo lous if it “lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

* Mr. Gravley requests oral argument, but it would not materiall y aid in our decision. We ar e therefore deciding the appeal based on Mr. Gravley’s appeal bri ef and the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgme nt does not constitut e binding precedent e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited if otherwise appropriat e. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); Te nth Cir. R. 32.1(A).3 We review the district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretio n.

Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). In our view, the dismissal obviously fell within the distric t court’s discretion because M r. Gravley’s

factual contentions were unbelieva ble. We therefore dismiss the appeal as

frivolous. 1 Though we dismiss the appeal, we must consider Mr. Gravley’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Gravley lac ks enough money to prepay the filing fee, b ut we can grant leave to proce ed in forma pauperis only if Mr. Gravley a cted in good faith . 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(a)(3). We consider good faith under an objective standard, so a frivol ous appeal is—by definition—m ade in bad faith. Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). Because we have already c haracterized the a ppeal as frivolous, we deny Mr. Gravley’s request for leave to proceed i n forma pauperis. See Lee v. Clinton , 209 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that a frivolous suit is, by definition, not taken in good faith for purposes of leave to proceed in forma pauperis).

1 The district court’s dismissal and ours count as two “prior o ccasions” for future requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Jennings v. Natrona Cty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10 th Cir. 1999) (“If we dis miss as frivolous the appeal of an action the district court d ismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e )(2)(B), both dismissals coun t as strikes.”), overruled on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015).4 Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge