UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOAQUIN L. CRAYTON,

		Plaintiff-Appellant,     

v.

STEPHEN W. KAISER; JANET BRYANT; MR. MOODY, Maintenance Supervisor of DCF; KATHY MILLER; CONSTANCE SUE YORK HOUGHTON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Dr. Michael A. Houghton, Deceased,

		Defendants-Appellees.     
	No. 00-7047
(E. District of Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 99-CV-154)	

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

NOV 24 2000

PATRICK FISHER
Clerk

	After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).  This court therefore honors the parties’ requests and orders the case submitted without oral argument.
	Joaquin L. Crayton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint.  In his civil rights complaint, Crayton asserted numerous constitutional and pendent state law claims arising out of a slip-and-fall in his prison cell caused by a leak in the ceiling of his housing unit.  The district court dismissed Crayton’s complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), concluding that in light of the vague and conclusory allegations contained therein, Crayton’s complaint lacked an arguable basis either in law or fact.
	This court reviews the district court’s dismissal of Crayton’s complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) for an abuse of discretion.  See McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574-75 (10th Cir. 1997).  Upon review of the entire record in this case, including the parties’ briefs and contentions on appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Crayton’s complaint as frivolous.  Accordingly, this court AFFIRMS the district court’s order of dismissal for substantially those reasons set forth in the district court’s order dated March 29, 2000.  In so doing, we note that the district court’s dismissal of Crayton’s complaint as frivolous counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).  See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999).  This court reminds Crayton that after a prisoner acquires three “strikes” he must prepay the entire filing fee before federal courts may consider his civil action or appeal.  See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Jennings, 175 F.3d at 778. 	
						ENTERED FOR THE COURT

						Michael R. Murphy
						Circuit Judge