Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02037/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sharon K. Knapp
Appellee
Ralph M. Lepiscopo
Appellant

Document Text:

• 

.., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RALPH M. LEPISCOPO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

Unit.ad Stat. Court of Appeala 

Tenth circuit 

t~CV 1 9 l99J 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-2037 

) 

SHARON K. KNAPP, Education Depart-) 

ment, New Mexico State Peniten- ) 

tiary, Santa Fe, New Mexico, ) 

) 

Oefendan~-Appellee. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV 90-71-JC) 

(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 petition seeking declaratory relief pursuant to 28 u.s.c . 

• 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: 90-2037 Document: 010110051320 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 1 
) 

< 

SS 2201, 2202 (1988) from an injunction restraining appellant from 

bringing prose actions in state court. 

Appellant, a prisoner in the New Mexico state penitentiary, 

brought a prose action in state court against the defendant, an 

art instructor at the penitentiary. He alleged in the suit that 

he gave the defendant items to be displayed at an exhibit and that 

they were damaged upon their return. Appellant sought $80.00 for 

actual damages and $1920.00 in punitive damages. The state court 

initially issued a default judgment in favor of appellant. It 

later dismissed the case without prejudice, however, when the 

defendant filed a motion to vacate the summary judgment. The 

state court cited a permanent injunction restraining appellant 

from filing any civil or criminal action in any court in the state 

unless an attorney would attest that good grounds existed for 

bringing the action. Lepiscopo v. Hopwood, No. Cv 87-08954 (N.M. 

2d Dist. Ct. 1989). 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 after 

appellant filed 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. 

After his unsuccessful attempt in state court, appellant 

filed a grievance with prison officials. The grievance officer 

informed appellant, however, that a complaint concerning money 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2037 Document: 010110051320 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 2 
owed from a judgment is a civil matter outside the grievance 

process. 

Appellant then brought this prose action for a declaratory 

judgment in the district court. He sought relief from the dismissal of the action filed in state court and the injunction prohibiting him from filing an action unless the pleadings are signed 

by an attorney. 

The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 

appellant's complaint. The district court determined that if it 

were to assume jurisdiction over the action a conflict may arise 

between state and federal courts. The court also found that this 

suit was merely an attempt at a substitute for an appeal of the 

state court's action. 

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. SS 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. Sanqre 

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 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2037 Document: 010110051320 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 3 
• ( 

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

We find no abuse here. It is necessary and proper for a 

court to issue a permanent injunction refraining 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; cf. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989) (restriction on abusive litigant's ability to file in forma pauperis 

action is within inherent powers of the court). Moreover, the 

state courts provide appellant an adequate avenue to seek review 

of the order dismissing the suit against defendant. We therefore 

AFFIRM the district court's order dismissing appellant's petition. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the .Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2037 Document: 010110051320 Date Filed: 11/19/1990 Page: 4