Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01265/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

un1JsJ_L~J)Appea11 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circwt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., ) 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. ) No. 92-1265 

) (D.C. No. 92-F-1672) 

HONORABLE EDWARD W. NOTTINGHAM; UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF 

COLORADO, 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This appeal is taken from the district court's order 

dismissing Mr. Green's Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief by which Mr. Green sought an order directing the Honorable 

Edward W. Nottingham to rule on one of Mr. Green's other cases, 

* 

not 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 92-1265 Document: 010110220177 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
No. 92-N-602, a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Green 

complained that the state had not responded in No. 92-N-602, 

thereby entitling him to relief. The habeas petition seeks t o 

challenge the constitutionality of Colo . Rev. Stat. § 18-1 -405 (1 ) , 

which requires trial of an accused within six months of the entry 

of a plea of not guilty. 

At the time this action was filed, the habeas corpus petition 

had been pending five months. Contrary to Mr. Green's assertion, 

the state had filed a response. In addition, the magistrate j udge 

had filed his recommendation . 

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is largely within the 

discretion of the issuing court. Marathon Oil Co . v. Lujan, 937 

F.2d 498, 500 {10th Cir. 1991), citing Kerr v . United States Dist . 

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976 ) . Under the circumstances of this 

case, we cannot agree that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying the writ. Marathon Oil Co . v. Lujan, 937 

F.2d at 500. 

Mr. Green has also filed a mandamus petition in this case, 

s eeking an order of this court directing Judge Nottingham to hear 

and decide No . 92-N-602. In addition, he has recently commenced 

an original proceeding in this court, Green v. Nottingham, No. 

93- 546, in which he challenges the district court's failure to 

rule in No . 92-N-602. We will address the mandamus application in 

No . 93-546. 

{continued 

except for 

the case , 36.3. 

from previous page) 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 

2 

the law of 

10th Cir. R. 

Appellate Case: 92-1265 Document: 010110220177 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

mandamus is DENIED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

The petition for writ of 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1265 Document: 010110220177 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-1265 Document: 010110220177 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4