Michael Wayne Finley, Plaintiff-appellant, v. State of Kansas, and "all" Conspirators, I.e.,municipalities & Government, Defendants-appellees, 961 F.2d 219 (10th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore SEYMOUR, STEPHEN H. ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Michael Wayne Finley appeals the dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), of his civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court correctly described Finley's complaint and contentions as "rambling and incoherent" as well as "conclusory, [and] frivolous." See District Court "Order" filed September 6, 1991. Finley's contentions on appeal are equally rambling, incoherent, conclusory and frivolous. We conclude from the record that Finley can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). We therefore deny Finley's motion for leave to proceed without payment of costs or fees.
The filing fee is waived; the appeal is DISMISSED and the mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
