Anthony Ray Jenkins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Don L. Scott and State of Kansas, 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

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.


ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

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).

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's 42 U.S.C.1983 complaint, because neither the State of Kansas nor the Department of Corrections is a "person" for purposes of 1983, Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989), and defendant Don L. Scott, district attorney, is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions taken in his role as prosecutor. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427-28 (1976). Although on appeal plaintiff refers to speedy trial rights, double jeopardy and probable cause, he did not and could not raise those issues below in a 1983 case; arguments attacking the fact of his state court conviction or confinement must be raised in a habeas action. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

We conclude that plaintiff 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.