* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral ar gument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel.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 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES CHAPMAN THAMER, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. GORDON CAMPBELL, STEVE CORRY, Stake President, GORDON B. HINCKLEY, President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and HEBURT GURTS,

Defendants-Appellees. Case No. 97-4174 (D.C. 97-CV-754) (District of Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Charles Thamer appeals the dismissal of h is pro se civil rights1 An argument can be made that Mr. Thamer’s complaintis brought

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Indeed, his complaint and his brief on appeal are difficult to decode. After examining them carefully, we do not think the district court abuse d its discretion in treating Mr. Thamer’s claim as one arising under § 1983. Howeve r, even if Mr. Thamer’s complaint were a petition for a writ of habeas corp us, we would dismiss this appeal on the grounds that Mr. Thamer’s petition is successive or time-barred. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b) & (d); see also United States v. Avila-Avila , 132 F.3d 1347, 1349 (10th Cir. 1997) (denying application fo r leave to file successive habeas petition in absence of newly discovered evid ence or new constitutional law). 2 complaint. 1 The district court dismissed Mr. Thamer’s complai nt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). According to that section, a pri soner may not bring a civil action in forma pauperis if on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated, he or she “brought an action or appeal in a court o f the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, mali cious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prison er is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. Thamer has filed thirteen previous claims in th e District of Utah, more than three of which were dismissed as frivolous. F urthermore, this Court has considered several of Mr. Thamer’s previous cases. See Thamer v. Graf , No. 93- 4093, 1993 WL 340933 (10th Cir. Aug. 27, 1993) (aff irming dismissal of “largely unintelligible” complaint); Thamer v. Neighbors , 91-4051, 1991 WL 172646 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 1991) (affirming dismissal of complaint); see also Thamer v. Graf , No. 95-4192, 1996 WL 494308 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 1 996)3

(dismissing appeal of denial of “largely unintellig ible” habeas petition). Thus, Mr. Thamer cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. The district co urt found that Mr. Thamer’s complaint contained no allegations of imminent dang er of serious physical injury. We have reviewed the record on appeal, and to the e xtent that we can decipher it, we find no allegation of imminent dang er of serious physical injury. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed Mr. Th amer’s complaint. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and a ll pending motions are hereby DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge