Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02109/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lynn Bartels
Appellee
Mark Hopwood
Appellee
Ralph M. Lepiscopo
Appellant
Robert J. Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RALPH M. LEPISCOPO, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

UnJted SW. Court of Appeals 

T'"'lth eiw1it 

r.:c v 1 9 19s0 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.) 

) 

No. 90-2109 

ROBERT J. TANSY, Warden, 

New Mexico State Penitentiary; 

MARK HOPWOOD; and LYNN BARTELS, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-284-M) 

(District of New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This action arises from the district court's denial of appellant's prose complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. SS 2201, 2202 (1988) or, in the alternative, 

* 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: 90-2109 Document: 010110051319 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 1 
\ a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254(a) (1988). 

This matter is before the court on appellant's application for a 

certificate of probable cause and appellant's appeal of the 

district court's denial of jurisdiction under the Declaratory 

Judgment Act. 

Appellant, a prisoner in the New Mexico state penitentiary, 

seeks to attack a permanent injunction entered against him in 

Lepiscopo v. Hopwood, No. Cv 87-08954 (N.M. 2d Dist. Jan. 5, 

1989). The injunction restrains appellant from filing any civil 

or criminal action in any court in the state unless an attorney 

attests that good grounds exist for bringing the action. The 

injunction provides an exception when any judge aware of the 

injunction issues an order allowing appellant to file an action in 

that court. The injunction was issued in response to the filing 

by appellant of a high number of prose actions in the state 

courts, including at least twenty-four in one district alone. The 

state court found that most, if not all, of the actions were without legal merit. 

The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 

appellant's request for a declaratory judgment. The district 

court also determined that appellant is not entitled to habeas 

corpus relief because appellant did not allege that he was in 

state custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the 

United States. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2109 Document: 010110051319 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 2 
We have reviewed the files and records and conclude that 

appellant has failed to state a sufficient claim for section 2254 

relief to warrant issuance of a certificate of probable cause 

under 28 U.S.C. S 2253 (1988). As the district court explained, 

appellant does not allege that he is in state "custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States." 28 u.s.c. S 2254(a) (1988). 

Nor do we believe that the district court erred when it 

declined to exercise jurisdiction over appellant's declaratory 

judgment claim. Jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act 

is not mandatory, and the district court has discretion to entertain an action for declaratory relief. 28 u.s.c. §§ 2201, 2202 

(1988). A declaratory judgment need be issued only when there is 

a controversy between the parties with legal interests of sufficient immediacy to require issuance of the judgment. Norvell v. 

Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co., 519 F.2d 370, 378 (10th Cir. 1975). We 

review a district court's decision to exercise jurisdiction under 

the Declaratory Judgment Act only to determine whether there has 

been an abuse of discretion. Shannon v. Segueechi, 365 F.2d 827, 

829 (10th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 481 (1967). 

It is necessary and proper for a court to issue a permanent 

injunction restraining a litigant from filing future prose 

actions after a long and repeated history of frivolous and 

vexatious lawsuits. See Gordon v. United States Dept. of Justice, 

558 F.2d 618, 619 (1st Cir. 1977), and cases cited therein. 

Appellant's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2109 Document: 010110051319 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 3 
' ~ claim here that the injunction is not valid because it was granted 

at the request of one party but applicable to suits filed against 

any party is without merit. When issuing the injunction, the 

state court said that it would take it upon itself to enjoin 

appellant from filing further lawsuits. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

It is ordered as follows: 

1. Appellant's application for a certificate of probable 

cause is denied; 

2. The appeal is dismissed; and 

3. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2109 Document: 010110051319 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 4