* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### SEP 19 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BARTON LEE MURPHY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WILLIAM PERRILL,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 97-1216 (Dist. of Colorado) (D.C. No. 96-S-277)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has unanimously determined that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordere d submitted without oral argument.-2-

Barton Lee Murphy appeals the district court’s refu sal to refund partial filing fees that Murphy paid pursuant to the PrisonLitigation Reform Act of 1996 (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apri l 26, 1996). Murphy contends that under this court’s decision in United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997), which held that the PLRA does not apply to habeas corpus petitions, he is entitled to a refund of the filing fees he paid to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Finding Murphy’s frivolous and malicious contentions without merit, this court affirms

. In an apparent effort at chicanery, Murphy has fail ed to inform this panel that he presented this exact issue to the panel that decided the merits of his habeas corpus petition. In an order entered June 9, 1997, a panel of this court held as follows: This matter is before the court on appellant’s “Mot ion to Waive filing Fees in Appeal of District Court Orderthat This Circuit’s Defining A Statute is not Retroactive.” Mr. Murphy seeks an order from this court requiring the district court to reimburse him for monies paid towards payment of the filing fee i n this appeal. He also seeks a declaration that our opinion in United States v. Simmonds , 111 F.3d 737 (10th Cir. 1997), is retroactive. A fter reviewing Mr. Murphy’s motion, the court has determ ined he is not entitled to reimbursement for payments made prior t o the filing of Simmonds . As a result of Simmonds , however, the court will vacate the assessment of any payments following the filing of that opinion. Mr. Murphy need not make any additional payments. This order will stand as a supplement to the court’s original mandate. Murphy v. Perrill , Order, No. 96-1389 (June 9, 1997).-3-

In light of the Order set out above, this panel nee d not tarry long on Murphy’s contentions. The Order entered in No. 96- 1389 is the law of this case and is not subject to relitigation by Murphy. See United States v. Monsisvais , 946 F.2d 114, 115-116 (10th Cir. 1991) (describing law- of-the-case doctrine and noting that “it is designed to bring about a quick resolution of disputes by preventing continued re-argument of issues already decided”). If Murphy was aggrieved by the Order set out above, his proper av enue for relief was a petition for rehearing, not an appeal of the district court order to a separate panel of this court. Fed. R. App. P. 40. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Colorado denying Murphy’s request for the refund of fees was in compliance with the mandate of this court and is therefore AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge