FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DARRYL WAYNE MANCO,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

No. 09-3251

(D. of Kan.)

 v. (D.C. No. 08-CV-03205-SAC)

JOHN/JANE DOES (1), employed as

Mail Room Employees by the Kansas

Department of Corrections S.A.T.P.

and Kansas Bureau of Investigations,

in their individual and official

capacities; S. BUSER, employed as

Mail Room Supervisor, El Dorado

Correctional Facility, in her individual

and official capacity; JJ SMITH,

employed as Sergeant of Intelligence

Investigation, El Dorado Correctional

Facility, in his individual and official

capacity; T. J. HERMECK, employed

as Lieutenant of Intelligence

Investigation, El Dorado Correctional

Facility, in his individual and offical

capacity; MIKE MYERS, employed as

former Facility Specialist, El Dorado

Correctional Facility, in his individual

and official capacity; DEBBIE

BRATTON, employed as Deputy

Warden of Operations, El Dorado

Correctional Facility, in her individual

and official capacity; JOHN A.

SCHELL, employed as a psychologist

at the Topeka Diagnostic Center, in

his individual and official capacity;

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

JOHN SHULL, doctor, employed as a

Dentist at Ellsworth Correctional

Facility, in his individual and official

capacity; JOHN/JANE DOES (2),

employed as (former) Chief Security

Officers of Intelligence Investigation,

Lansing Correctional Facility, in their

individual and official capacity;

JOHN/JANE DOES (3), employed as

(former) Directors of Enforcement,

Apprehension and Investigation, in

their individual and official capacity;

ROGER BONNER, employed as

(former) Chief Security Officer of

Intelligence Investigation, Lansing

Correctional Facility, and currently

employed as Director of Enforcement,

Apprehension and Investigation, in his

individual and official capacity; JOHN

LAMB, employed as Director of

Enforcement, Apprehension and

Investigation, in his individual and

official capacity; RAY LOWERY,

Administrative Executive for

D.C.C.C.A., Director of Correctional

Programs, in his individual and

official capacity; BARBARA

OWENS, employed as (former)

Director of S.A.T.P./D.C.C.C.A.,

currently employed as Director of

Quality Assurance for D.C.C.C.A., in

her individual and official capacity;

RICK KENDALL, employed as

Director of S.A.T.P./D.C.C.C.A.,

Lansing Correctional Facility, in his

individual and official capacity; JOHN

BECHTOLD, employed as (former)

SST, Lansing Correctional Facility, in

his individual and official capacity; 

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

DAVID R. MCKUNE, Warden,

Lansing Correctional Facility, in his

individual and official capacity;

ROBERT HANNIGAN, employed as

(former) Warden, Hutchinson

Correctional Facility, in his individual

and official capacity; MICHAEL

NELSON, employed as (former)

Warden, El Dorado Correctional

Facility, in his individual and official

capacity; RAYMOND ROBERTS,

employed as Warden, El Dorado

Correctional Facility, in his individual

and official capacity; (FNU) LYONS,

employed as (former) Lieutenant of

Intelligence Investigation, Hutchinson

Correctional Facility, in her individual

and official capacity; JOHN/JANE

DOES (4), employed as (former)

Deputy Wardens of Operations,

Lansing Correctional Facility, in their

individual and official capacities;

JOHN/JANE DOES (5), employed as

(former) Information Resource

Managers, Information Technology

Department, in their individual and

official capacities; CHARLES

SIMMONS, employed as (former)

Secretary of Corrections, currently

employed as Resource Manager,

Information Technology Department,

in his individual and official capacity;

ROGER WERHOLTZ, employed as

Secretary of Corrections, in his

individual and official capacity;

WILLIAM CUMMINGS, employed as

Secretary of Corrections Designee, in

his individual and official capacity; 

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 3 
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

-4-

JOHN/JANE DOES (6), Kansas

Bureau of Investigation, in their

individual and official capacities;

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Kansas

Governor, in her individual and

official capacity,

 Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.** 

Darryl Wayne Manco, a Kansas state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings a

host of civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Manco’s claims center on his

allegation that prison officials implanted a radio frequency device in his body to

track his movements and thoughts, among other things. The district court

dismissed Manco’s case as frivolous and denied him leave to proceed on appeal in

forma pauperis. 

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 4 
-5-

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district

court’s dismissal, find Manco’s appeal frivolous, and assess two strikes against

him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

I. Background

Manco’s 49-page complaint describes a “myriad of horrible conditions”

arising from his incarceration. R., Vol. 3 at 89. Manco alleges that prison

officials have implanted a tracking device in his jaw, and are engaging in a series

of unlawful rehabilitation methods. He also claims that prison officials

intercepted and destroyed his mail when he attempted to reveal these practices. 

He frames a retaliation claim because mental health staff ordered him to be

transferred to several different prisons and otherwise denied him privileges and

parole after he made public his claims of mistreatment. These actions amount to

violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, he claims.

The district court dismissed Manco’s claims. The court held his mail

interference claims were both time barred and not well pleaded. Next, it found

Manco’s claims relating to the tracking device had no factual basis, and therefore

it dismissed them as frivolous. Finally, in as much as Manco brought habeas

claims, the district court dismissed them without prejudice because they were

improperly framed as civil rights claims. 

Manco appeals the dismissal, relying on substantially the same arguments

and evidence he presented to the district court.

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 5 
-6-

II. Discussion

We review a district court’s dismissal of a frivolous claim for an abuse of

discretion. McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574–75 (10th Cir. 1997). A

complaint or appeal is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or

in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We find the district

court committed no error when it dismissed Manco’s claims as frivolous.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it held Manco’s claims

of mail interference were frivolous. Although Manco filed numerous complaints

about mail interference with prison management, a legal services provider at the

prison and the warden concluded that Manco’s mail had been delivered properly. 

Indeed, the appeal record shows that the person with whom Manco was

corresponding sent many letters to Manco over several years that verified the

receipt of Manco’s letters. 

Even if Manco explained who interfered with his mail or what mail was

interfered with, his mail-related claims are time barred. Liberally construed,

Manco’s complaint alleges mail interference as late as 2005. The statute of

limitations for a § 1983 action in Kansas lapsed in 2007, a year before Manco

filed this case. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985) (holding § 1983

actions are governed by state statute of limitations for personal injury); KAN.

STAT. § 60-513(a) (providing a two-year statute of limitations).

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 6 
-7-

The district court also did not abuse its discretion when it held Manco’s

claims related to the alleged tracking device were frivolous. Manco’s theory that

numerous state officials monitor his thoughts and send him inaudible, profane

messages is not supported by any evidence. Manco provides citations to various

patents and secondary literature that describe tracking devices. Even if, for the

sake of argument, this court assumes that such devices exist, Manco fails to

provide evidence that officials implanted a device in his body, nor does he give a

plausible motive for state officials to embark on such an endeavor. We agree

with the district court that Manco’s tracking device claims are frivolous. See

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (describing frivolous claims as

“fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional,” and holding “a finding of factual

frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable

facts available to contradict them”).

Finally, in so far as Manco seeks parole and credit for good behavior, his

claims are not properly brought under § 1983. The Supreme Court has made clear

that a “§ 1983 action will not lie when a state prisoner challenges the fact or

duration of his confinement and seeks either immediate release from prison or the

shortening of his term of confinement.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79

(2005) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 482, 489 (1973)) (internal

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 7 
-8-

citations and punctuation omitted). Instead, prisoners must seek either federal

habeas corpus relief or relief under state law. Id. at 78.

III. Conclusion

We dismiss Manco’s appeal as frivolous, and assess two strikes against him

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona County Det. Ctr. Med.

Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999) (“If we dismiss as frivolous the

appeal of an action the district court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),

both dismissals count as strikes.”). Manco’s motion for leave to file a

supplemental brief is denied. Manco’s application to appeal in forma pauperis is

denied, and the full amount of his filing fee should be paid immediately.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Document: 01018356713 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 8