Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02239/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02239-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Lepiscopo
Appellant
Robert Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

- fl LED 

Unir<.-d States C..ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Ci.r'.'."uit 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 2 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RALPH M. LEPISCOPO, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

ROBERT TANSY, ) 

) 

Respondent-Appellee. ) 

No. 89-2239 

(D. New Mexico) 

(D.C. No. 89-815-SC) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON and TACBA, 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 cause is therefore ordered 

Ralph M. Lepiscopo, appearing prose, appeals the dismissal, 

without prejudice, of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 2254. Mr. Lepiscopo is a prisoner in the 

* 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: 89-2239 Document: 01019971960 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 1 
New Mexico state penitentiary. His petition seeks a release from 

confinement essentially because of new photocopying procedures and 

charges in th~ prison library. He also alleges that his access to 

law books has been restricted . He claims that these actions by 

state authorities violate the "Duran Consent Decree." 1 

As the district court noted in its order, the subject matter 

of Mr. Lepiscopo's litigation is not appropriate for a habeas 

corpus proceeding. However, the district court went on to note 

that "petitioner is a seasoned litigator and presumed to know what 

he is doing. (Forty cases filed in this Court alone since 1984)." 

R. Vol. I, Tab 3. 

Thus, the district court took the petition at face value and 

dismissed it without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies as required by section 2254 . We have no reason to differ 

with the district court on the point, particularly in view of the 

fact that the dismissal was without prejudice. It is apparent 

that Mr. Lepiscopo can make no rational argument on the law or 

facts in support of his appeal from the district court's 

dismissal. Further, he has failed to make a substantial showing 

of the denial of a federal right necessary for the issuance of a 

certificate of probable cause. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 

880, 892-93 (1983). 

Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed without payment of 

costs and fees is denied and appellant's application for a 

1 The consent decree in Duran v. Carruthers was 

in the federal district court for the District of 

is most recently addressed in Duran v. Carruthers, 

839 (D.N.M. 1988), aff'd, 885 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 

-2-

entered in 1980 

New Mexico. It 

678 F. Supp. 

1989). 

Appellate Case: 89-2239 Document: 01019971960 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 2 
certificate of probable cause is denied. We further conclude this 

appeal is frivolous. The appeal is DISMISSED. -The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2239 Document: 01019971960 Date Filed: 04/23/1990 Page: 3