F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 14 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
CORTEZ EDWARD WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-1192
v. (D. Colorado)
ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, CARL (D.C. No. 98-Z-1981)
ZENON, DONICE NEAL, RANDY
FOSHEE, DENNIS BURBANK,
LARRY REID, VICKIE RIDDLE,
JUDY LINDSEY, JACKIE JONES, M.
WEBB, C. STARCER, J. LUSK, W.
LEHMAN, J. HALSTEAD, MIKE
VERRANO, D. DIEDRICH, L.
STOUDT, C. SHANNON., F.
RUYBALID, J. DALTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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.
Pro se appellant Cortez Edward Walker, currently in the custody of the
Colorado Department of Corrections at the Colorado State Penitentiary at Canon
City, Colorado, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action alleging various
constitutional violations, including that he was denied access to the law library
and the courts, that he was denied due process in an administrative segregation
hearing, that he was denied freedom of speech, that prison authorities interfered
with his legal mail, and that he was subject to retaliation for the exercise of his
First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as legally frivolous, and denied Mr. Walker’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Mr. Walker has filed several motions in this court: a motion entitled
“Requesting a hearing for the Defendant’s interfering with Plaintiff legal matters,
and ask for a court order for more access to law-library” and a motion
“Requesting that the Court of Appeals review the district court file in case
numbers 97-S-2347 and 98-D-1981 to show cause.” We have carefully reviewed
the record and pleadings in this case, and, for substantially the reasons set forth in
the district court’s order dated April 9, 1999, we find Mr. Walker’s claims to be
meritless. Additionally, we conclude this appeal is frivolous and we therefore
-2-
DISMISS it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We deny his pending
motions.
The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and our dismissal of this
appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Jennings v. Natrona
County Detention Ctr Med. Facility , 175 F.3d 775, ___ (10th Cir. 1999). Our
own research of the record reveals that Mr. Walker has had at least two previous
actions dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, he now has at least
four strikes against him. We direct the clerk of this court not to accept from Mr.
Walker any future filings of extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters or appeals
of judgment in civil actions or proceedings unless he first pays the applicable
filing fees, except in those instances that Mr. Walker’s filings claim that he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-