Bryan v. Greeno
Summary of the case Bryan v. Greeno
Larry A. Bryan filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against his court-appointed attorneys, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and conspiracy with the state. The district court dismissed the case as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) due to conclusory allegations and failure to invalidate his state court conviction per Heck v. Humphrey. Bryan's request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal was denied, and the appeal was dismissed.
Key Issues of the case Bryan v. Greeno
- Ineffective assistance of counsel
- Conspiracy with the state
Key Facts of the case Bryan v. Greeno
- Bryan alleged ineffective assistance by court-appointed attorneys.
- The district court dismissed the case as legally frivolous.
Decision of the case Bryan v. Greeno
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Opinions
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/24/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
LARRY A. BRYAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 95-3235 v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3223) E. JAY GREENO and JOHN COWLES, (D. Kan.) Court-Appointed Defense Counsels, Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Larry A. Bryan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his court-appointed attorneys provided ineffective
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. assistance of counsel in his state court conviction. He also alleges that his attorneys
conspired against him with the state. The district court dismissed the action as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because of Mr. Bryan’s conclusory allegations
and because Mr. Bryan had not first invalidated his state court conviction as required by
Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). The court then denied Mr. Bryan leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and have determined
that Mr. Bryan fails to make a sufficient argument on the law or on the facts to warrant
granting him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Thus, Mr. Bryan’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is DISMISSED.
DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
2