*This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation

of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of Tenth Cir. 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 Colorado)

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 therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Don Alton Harper (Harper), appearing pro se and in forma

pauperis, appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of
-2-

his “Application to Proceed Under the Mandamus Act Invokes Title 28

U.S.C. 1651 (A) Shows Cause Orders - Cross-Claim, Conflict of

Interest of Two States Invokes Now 28 1404 Short Title Acts 28 1

NT,” with an attached diversity of citizenship complaint captioned

in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

Harper is incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Facility at

Florence, Colorado. His application-complaint sought a writ of

mandamus directed to the United States District Court for the

District of Kansas to docket his various claims against individuals

involved in the criminal case brought against him. The district

court dismissed Harper’s complaint and action as legally frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

On appeal, in a rambling, disjointed pro se brief entitled

“Opening Brief - Diversity of Citizenship - Deliberate Indifference

Standard,” Harper generally alleges disregard of the law, judicial

usurpation, denial of a fair trial, insufficient evidence, lack of

probable cause to believe a crime had been committed, questions of

realignment of parties for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,

conspiracy to violate civil rights, and reckless disregard to the

suffering inflicted. Harper demands his immediate release 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 § 1915(d) for

an abuse of discretion. Green v. Seymour, 59 F.3d 1073 (10th Cir.

1995). Section 1915(d) “accords judges not only the authority to

dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory,

but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the 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 in the

district court’s “Order of Dismissal” entered and dated January 31,

1996.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court:

James E. Barrett,

Senior United States

Circuit Judge