Strader v. Werholtz, No. 19-3242 (10th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 30, 2019 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JAMES C. STRADER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROGER WERHOLTZ, Secretary of Corrections; KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CORIZON; SAM CLINE, Warden, El Dorado Correctional Facility; FNU SHUBER, No. 19-3242 (D.C. No. 5:19-CV-03102-SAC) (D. Kan.) Defendants - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before CARSON, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination * This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 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. James C. Strader appeals from a series of orders of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court dismissed Strader’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim; denied Strader’s numerous motions, which constituted more than 900 pages, as frivolous and irrelevant; and imposed targeted and narrow restrictions on Strader’s ability to file additional motions in this particular case. Reading his difficult-tounderstand appellate filings liberally, Strader appears to appeal from all of these rulings. Strader’s brief on appeal does not contain a single meaningful citation to authority or any meaningful analysis of the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, resolution of his numerous motions, or imposition of limited filing restrictions. Upon de novo review of the district court’s various orders, Strader’s appellate brief, and the entire record on appeal, we conclude this appeal is frivolous and, therefore, Strader is not entitled to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. -2- For those reasons set out above, this appeal is DISMISSED pursuant to the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(i) (providing that a court shall dismiss a proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious). ENTERED FOR THE COURT Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge -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.
