Case Name: Mitchell Jack JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julie McKENNA, Assistant District Attorney, Salina, KS; (FNU) Jerkovich, Psychiatrist, Salina, KS; William Hermesmeyer, Public Defender; Mark Dinkle, Head Public Defender; R E Schulman, Clinical and Forensic Psychology; Douglas D. Sheafer, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Steve Shelton, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; William Hale, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry, Snehal Shimpi, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Mary Ann Abbott, Psychiatry Doctor; Dolly Weiller, Clinical Psychology; and Jane Doe, Director of Central Kansas Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-18
Citations: 20 F. App'x 832
Docket Number: No. 01-3074
Parties: Mitchell Jack JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julie McKENNA, Assistant District Attorney, Salina, KS; (FNU) Jerkovich, Psychiatrist, Salina, KS; William Hermesmeyer, Public Defender; Mark Dinkle, Head Public Defender; R E Schulman, Clinical and Forensic Psychology; Douglas D. Sheafer, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Steve Shelton, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; William Hale, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry, Snehal Shimpi, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Mary Ann Abbott, Psychiatry Doctor; Dolly Weiller, Clinical Psychology; and Jane Doe, Director of Central Kansas Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 832–833

Head Matter:
Mitchell Jack JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Julie McKENNA, Assistant District Attorney, Salina, KS; (FNU) Jerkovich, Psychiatrist, Salina, KS; William Hermesmeyer, Public Defender; Mark Dinkle, Head Public Defender; R E Schulman, Clinical and Forensic Psychology; Douglas D. Sheafer, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Steve Shelton, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; William Hale, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry, Snehal Shimpi, Medical Doctor, Psychiatry; Mary Ann Abbott, Psychiatry Doctor; Dolly Weiller, Clinical Psychology; and Jane Doe, Director of Central Kansas Mental Health, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-3074.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Oct. 18, 2001.
Before SEYMOUR and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
When Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this case, he designated it as pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a well-stated order, the district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b). The district court then granted Plaintiff leave to appeal informa pauperis.
On appeal, Plaintiff appears to argue that he is also entitled to habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He relies on the same facts that he alleged in the trial court plus some additional facts. While the district court never addressed this ease as one for habeas corpus, after review of the pleadings and briefs, we conclude that Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead a plausible action for habeas corpus.
However characterized, we conclude that this action fails. Therefore, the district court's order dismissing the action is affirmed. The motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Appellant is reminded that he is still obligated to finish payment of the filing fee ordered by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.