Filed: Nov. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 23, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT TONY E. KANNO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. No. 11-6187 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00032-D) THREE UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE (W.D. Oklahoma) FEDERAL MARSHALS OF OKLAHOMA CITY OFFICE, Defendant–Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanim
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 23, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT TONY E. KANNO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. No. 11-6187 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00032-D) THREE UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE (W.D. Oklahoma) FEDERAL MARSHALS OF OKLAHOMA CITY OFFICE, Defendant–Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimo..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
November 23, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSElisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
TONY E. KANNO,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v. No. 11-6187
(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00032-D)
THREE UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE (W.D. Oklahoma)
FEDERAL MARSHALS OF
OKLAHOMA CITY OFFICE,
Defendant–Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
After examining Plaintiff’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff, appearing pro se,1 appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim and frivolousness. After a
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
1
We liberally construe Plaintiff’s pro se filings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka,
Kan.,
318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).
thorough review of the record, we affirm the district court’s order.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Nigeria, was incarcerated in the David C. Moss Criminal
Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the time he filed his complaint. He has since been
released. Plaintiff contends that he has been under investigation in “secret court” and has
been “given an unconstitutional death penalty by the Department of Homeland Security.”
(Appellant’s Br. at 5, 7.) Plaintiff claims he is being slowly burned to death by drones
that use a microwave to boil and cook parts of his body, and that he is only alive because
he understood the weapons and kept himself wet.
The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). A claim may be dismissed as frivolous “if the facts alleged are clearly
baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.”
Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). We review the district court’s determination of factual frivolousness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard, see
id., and we are not persuaded that the district court
abused its discretion in this case by finding the allegations to be clearly baseless.
For substantially the same reasons given by the magistrate judge and the district
court, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-2-