
    Stewart A. WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kathryn H. VRATIL, in her official capacity of Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Kansas; and United States District Court for The District of Kansas, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-3371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    April 14, 2010.
    Stewart Anthony Webb, Independence, MO, pro se.
    Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Stewart A. Webb filed suit against the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, and against Kathryn Vra-til, in her official capacity as the Chief Judge of that court. In a thorough six-page order, the district court denied Mr. Webb’s request to proceed in forma pau-peris, concluding that the lawsuit was legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Accordingly, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice to the filing of a pre-paid complaint.

Mr. Webb appeals this decision and seeks permission to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. For substantially the same reasons set out by the district court in its order, this court concludes that this appeal is frivolous or malicious. See also Price v. Vratil, 365 Fed.Appx. 976, 977 (10th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (reaching same result in similar appeal with similar complaint). Accordingly, we hereby dismiss this appeal and deny the request to proceed informa pauperis on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines ... the ... appeal is frivolous or malicious.”). 
      
       After examining appellant's brief 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)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel.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.
     