Murray v. United States , 475 F. App'x 311 ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 23, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY RAY MURRAY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 12-6147
v. (D.C. No. 5:12-CV-00542-R)
(W.D. Okla.)
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; CERTAIN MEMBERS
OF THE U.S. SENATE; CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE;
THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. **
Timothy Ray Murray, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint as frivolous. He filed this action seeking damages and
injunctive relief against the United States, several members of the U.S. House and
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Senate, and the Governor of Oklahoma. He alleges various conspiracies by the
government against himself. This court his jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
Mr. Murray alleges various government conspiracies, including the use of
satellites to damage his reproductive system, the broadcast of his life on radio and
television, and an alleged cover-up about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
He alleges violations of his rights “under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments;” the district court reviewed his
complaint based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it as
frivolous. See Murray v. United States, No. CIV-12-542-R, ECF No. 14 (W.D.
Okla. June 6, 2012).
We review a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for frivolousness for
an abuse of discretion. See Milligan v. Archuleta, 659 F.3d 1294, 1296 (10th Cir.
2011). After reviewing Mr. Murray’s claims, we agree with the district court that
they seem to fall in the delusional category or involve claims that would be barred
by sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment. See Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989).
AFFIRMED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-2-