W e l i ber al l ycons true pro se p le a d in g s a n d a p p e lla te b ri e fs . Ledbet t erv. 1 C i t y of Topeka, Kan. , 3 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT BA RR Y WAT S ON,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6350 v. W . D . O kl a. H A R O L D M A U R IC E JA M E S ; K E V IN M CCR AY ; RA Y C . ELLI OTT; NA THA N D I LLS; RO BERT BY BEE; M I KE SPEEGLE; J ERA L SCOTT DU PY; ALLEN J . W ELCH ; J EFF REY BY E RS ; J E NNI F E R R I CH AR D; CA RO LYN L. M ERRI TT,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV- 4 6 2 - R)

ORDE R DI S M I S S I NG AP P LI CAT I ON AS F RI VOLOUS B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. B a rr yW a ts o n , pro se , a p p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is 1-2-

4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 c o m p lain t o n sta tu te o f lim itatio n s g ro u n d s. W e d ism iss h is f ri v o lo u s a p p e a l. B ackgr ound I n hi s compl ai nt , W at s on r el at ed thi s s er i es of eve nt s . W at s on w as arr es t ed on A pr i l 16, 1998. O n N ovember6, 2000, he pr ocee ded t o tr i al i n s t at e courtand w as r epr es ent ed bya s t at e publ i c defender . O n N ovember29, 2000, he w as s ent ence d aft erbei ng found gui l tyof cha r ges ar i s i ng fr om t he A pr i l 1998 i nci dent . C ar ol yn M err i t t , a s t aff l aw y eratt he s t at e publ i c defender ’ s offi ce w ho di d nots erve as tr i al couns el , r epr es ent ed W at s on on di r ectappea l . She di d not r ai s e as s i gnm ent s of err orbas ed on i neffect i ve as s i s t ance of tr i al couns el ort r i al c o u n s e l’ s a lle g e d c o n flic t o f in te re s t. O n O ctob er 1 8 , 2 0 0 1 , the O k laho m a C o u rt of C r i m i nal A ppeal s aff i r m ed W at s on’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . M o re th a n fo u r y e a rs la ter , o n A p ril 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , W a tso n filed a c iv il righ ts compl ai nti n fede r al courtagai ns thi s appel l at e couns el , hi s t r i al couns el , t he o ffice rs in v o lv e d in h is A p ril 1 9 9 8 a rre st, a n d h is tria l ju d g e . H e a lleg e d M e rritt cons pi r ed w i th “co- w or ker s , a s t at e off i ci al ors t at e off

i ci al s , ” ac t i ng undercol or of s t at e l aw , t o denyhi s r i ght s t o 1) di r ectappea l ; 2) confl i ct - fr ee a nd effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; 3) due pr oces s ; and 4) equal pr ot ect i on. H e al s o cl ai m ed he w a s d e n ied e q u a l p ro tec tio n o f th e law d u rin g h is d ire c t ap p e a l b e c a u se o f h is povertyand r ace . H e s ought1) a j uryt r i al ; 2) decl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i efW hen a pr i s oneri s gr ant ed l eave t o pr ocee d ifp i n the di s tr i ctcourtt hat 2 r i ghtcont i nues on appea l unl es s t he di s tr i ctcourtcert i fi es t he appe al i s nott aken i n good fai th. Fed. R . A pp. P. 24( a) ( 3) . W at s on’ s cont i nui ng i f p s t atus does not r el i eve hi m of hi s obl i gat i on t o payfi l i ng fee s , i tm er el yperm i t s t he fe es t o be pai d i n i ns t al l m ent s . A ccor di ngl y , he mustcont i nue t o m ake pa ym ent s unt i l t he filin g fe e is p a id in f

u ll. K i nnel lv. G r aves , 265 F. 3d 1125, 1129 ( 10th C i r . 2001) (d ism iss a l o f

a n a p p e a l d o e s n o t re liev e a p p e llan t o f o b lig a tio n to p a ya p p e llate fil ing fe e in f

u ll ). -3- againsthis tri al j ud ge; and 3 ) m on et arydam ages ag ai nstthe rem ai ning defend ants . T he magi s tr at e j udge conc l uded W at s on’ s cl ai m s w er e fi l ed w el l aft erthe tw o- y ears t atut e of s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons had run and r ecomm ended di s m i s s i ng W at s on’ s compl ai nt . O verW at s on’ s obj ect i ons , the di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the m agi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed W at s on’ s compl ai nt as unt i m el y . T he courtl efti t s pr evi ous gr antof l eave t o pr ocee d ifp i nt act but i m pos ed a s tr i ke under28 U . S. C . § 1915( g) . W at s on has fi l ed a mot i on forl eave t o fi l e ifp i n thi s C our t even though i t i s unnece s s ary t o do s o. See Fed. R . A pp. 2 P . 2 4 (a)(5). U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , t hi s C our tm us tdi s m i s s fr i vol ous a p p e a ls. W a tso n ’s b rie f fa ils to p re se n t an yleg a l th e o ryo r re fe r to sp e c ific fa c ts th a t c o u ld c o n c e iv a b ly re f u te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s th o ro u g h ly re a s o n e d d is p o s itio n .T hi s di s m i s s al count s as a s tr i ke under§ 1915( g) . T hus , W at s on has 3 a c c u m u la te d tw o s tr ik e s , o n e in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d o n e h e re . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g ); Je n n in gs v . Na tro n a C o u n ty D e t. C tr. Me d . Fa c ili ty , 175 F. 3d 775, 780 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). -4- DI S M I S S ED . 3 ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge