Rickey Lavern Sheppard, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Alvin Matheson, Highway Patrolman; Max Barrett, Deputysheriff; Robert Balloun, Sheriff Russell County; N. Jeannebecker, Magistrate Judge of Russell County Court; Peter R.williams, Attorney; Merl Ney, Deputy Sheriff; Jerry E.driscoll, Attorney, Defendants-appellees, 161 F.3d 18 (10th Cir. 1998)
Annotate this CaseBefore PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
JOHN C. PORFILIO, 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 case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1
Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging several violations of his civil rights in connection with his arrest. The district court dismissed the claims. Upon de novo review, see Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485, 1490 (10th Cir. 1997),2 we AFFIRM for the reasons cited by the district court in its December 11, 1997, order. This appeal is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for the purpose of counting "prior occasions" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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
We remind plaintiff that the filing fees in both this court and the district court remain due
The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim of mishandling of mail as frivolous. Although it did not specify, we assume the dismissal of the remainder of the claims was pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii), for failure to state a claim. Because the language of that section parallels Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), we apply the same de novo standard of review. See Barren v. Harrington, No. 98-15277, 1998 WL 537934, at * 1 (9th Cir. Aug.26, 1998) (collecting cases)
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.
