Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02256/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02256-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RALPH M. LEPISCOPO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

Unittd States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Cirmit 

/\PR 15 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-2256 

v. 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO and 

NEW MEXICO MEDICAL REVIEW 

COMMISSION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-517 HB) 

(Dist. N. M.) 

ORDER ANO JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

Ralph Lepiscopo, a prose prisoner, bro~ght this suit against 

the State of New Mexico and the New Mexico Medical Review 

Commission seeking a declaration that the New Mexico Malpractice 

Act is unconstitutional. The Act requires malpractice claimants 

to assert their claims administratively through an attorney before 

filing suit. Lepiscopo, who is indigent, asserts that this 

procedural requirement denied him access to the courts because he 

is unable to obtain the attorney required to pursue his claim 

administratively. The district court granted the State's motion 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

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

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2256 Document: 010110034182 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 1 
to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief and the 

Commission's motion to dismiss on the basis of Eleventh Amendment 

immunity. We affirm. 

We must first address our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 

The district court entered its judgment on September 10, 1990, but 

the notice of appeal was not filed until November 9, 1990. 

Ordinarily the appeal would not be timely under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(l), which requires that the notice of appeal be filed within 

thirty days. However, this prose prisoner hand wrote his notice 

of appeal and submitted it to the Prisoners' Mail Box" on 

September 13, 1990. Rec., vol. I, doc. 18 at 3. Under similar 

circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that a prose prisoner's 

notice of appeal is "filed" for the purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(l) when it is delivered to prison authorities for forwarding 

to the district court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 

We therefore hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

With respect to the merits, it is clear that the New Mexico 

courts will not apply the procedural and/or administrative 

provisions of the New Mexico Malpractice Act if to do so would 

deprive a claimant of his right of access to the courts. See 

Jiron v. Mahlab, 99 N. Mex. 425, 659 P.2d 311, 312-13 (1983); see 

also Otero v. Zouhar, 102 N. Mex. 482, 697 P.2d 482, 485-86 

(1985), overruled in part on other grounds, Grantland v. Lea 

Regional Hosp .• Inc., 110 N. Mex. 378, 796 P.2d 599 (1990). Thus 

an indigent claimant who is unable to obtain an attorney and is 

thereby precluded from presenting his claim administratively 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2256 Document: 010110034182 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 2 
' 

would be permitted to file a prose malpractice suit in state 

court without first filing an administrative complaint. 

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Lepiscopo's suit against 

New Mexico. 

We likewise affirm dismissal of the claim against the 

Commission. The Commission functions as an institution or agency 

of New Mexico. As such any suit naming it as defendant is barred 

by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. -v. 

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2256 Document: 010110034182 Date Filed: 04/15/1991 Page: 3