Anthony Ray Jenkins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Liberal Police Department, Charlie Maddock, Defendants-appellees, 66 F.3d 338 (10th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 66 F.3d 338 (10th Cir. 1995) Sept. 15, 1995

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.


LOGAN

This matter is before the court on plaintiff Anthony Ray Jenkins' motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal without payment of costs or fees.

To succeed on his motion, plaintiff must show both the financial inability to pay the required filing fees and the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C.1915(d); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962).

Plaintiff seeks to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.1983 complaint filed against the Liberal (Kansas) police department and Officer Charlie Maddock. He alleges that he was falsely arrested on drug charges in March 1992, and that his minor son was beaten and falsely arrested in December 1991. He filed suit in June 1994. The district court dismissed the action as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to such suits in Kansas. See Hamilton v. City of Overland Park, 730 F.2d 613, 614 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1052 (1985).

We conclude that petitioner can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. The appeal is DISMISSED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

 1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

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.