Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01437/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01437-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Buhl
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: LEROY BUHL, 

 Petitioner.

No. 15-1437

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00302-REB-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court following our receipt of petitioner’s response to our 

order dated December 8, 2015. We have also reviewed the response submitted to the 

show cause order dated November 13, 2015. 

Upon consideration, we conclude this matter is moot. As Mr. Buhl admits in the 

response received on December 28, the district court has ruled on the motions identified 

in the petition. Moreover, he notes he has had the eye surgery mentioned in his pleadings. 

While he urges the petition is not moot, that objection is based solely on his disagreement 

with the district court’s rulings. That argument is unavailing, as mandamus may not be 

used as “a substitute for an appeal.” Weston v. Mann (In re Weston), 18 F.3d 860, 864

(10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1437 Document: 01019546412 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 1 
2

In light of this dismissal, we need not reach the question whether the “three 

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) applies to this petition or whether Mr. Buhl has 

satisfied the imminent danger exception found in the statute. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1437 Document: 01019546412 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 Page: 2