* This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicat a, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order andjudgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Ci r. R. 36.3. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/12/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

______ DON A. HARPER, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) v. ) No. 96-1057 ) (D.C. No. 96-S-207) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, ) (Dist. of Colora do) KANSAS CITY; KANSAS JUDGE VAN ) BEBBER; R.S. STREEPY, U.S. ) Prosecutor; LARRY C. PACE, ) Attorney; VERNON LEWIS, Attorney, ) and others, ) ) Respondents-Appellees. )

______ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

______ Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

______ After examining the briefs and the 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is t herefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Don Alton Harper (Harper), appearing pro seand in forma pauperis, appeals from the district court’s suasponte dismissal of-2-

his “Application to Proceed Under the Mandamus Act Invokes Title 28 U.S.C. 1651 (A) Shows Cause Orders - Cross-Claim, C onflict of Interest of Two States Invokes Now 28 1404 Short Ti tle Acts 28 1 NT,” with an attached diversity of citizenship comp laint captioned in the United States District Court for the Distric t of Kansas. Harper is incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Facility at Florence, Colorado. His application-complaint soug ht a writ of mandamus directed to the United States District Cou rt for the District of Kansas to docket his various claims aga inst individuals involved in the criminal case brought against him. The district court dismissed Harper’s complaint and action as le gally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). On appeal, in a rambling, disjointed prosebrief entitled “Opening Brief - Diversity of Citizenship - Deliber ate Indifference Standard,” Harper generally alleges disregard of th e law, judicial usurpation, denial of a fair trial, insufficient ev idence, lack of probable cause to believe a crime had been committe d, questions of realignment of parties for purposes of diversity ju risdiction, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and reckless di sregard to the suffering inflicted. Harper demands his immediate r elease from false imprisonment. It is well settled that a petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show, by clear and indisputable evidence, that the writ should issue. Mallard v. United States , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989).-3-

We review the district court’s dismissal under § 19 15(d) for an abuse of discretion. Green v. Seymour , 59 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir. 1995). Section 1915(d) “accords judges not only th e authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of th e complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Id . at 1077 (quoting Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth i n the district court’s “Order of Dismissal” entered and d ated January 31, 1996.
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett, Senior United States Circuit Judge