132 F3d 42 Depineda v. Henderson Cmc
132 F.3d 42
97 CJ C.A.R. 3392
Andres T. DEPINEDA, named as petitioner on behalf of Manuel
Sesario Depineda, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Randy HENDERSON, C.M.C.; Attorney General for the State of
Colorado; Susan Jones, Assistant Superintendent;
and Frank Miller, Assistant
Superintendent, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 97-1335.
(D.C.No. 97-D-1310)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 16, 1997.
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Andres T. Depineda filed a pro se action in the district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of his brother Manuel Sesario Depineda. Manuel is an abusive filer already sanctioned by this court for his persistent frivolous litigation in an order enjoining him from litigating unless represented by a licensed attorney. Depineda v. Hemphill, 34 F.3d 946 (10th Cir.1994). This proceeding is a clumsy and thinly disguised attempt to evade our injunction and avoid the consequences. The district court properly held Andres Depineda lacked standing to bring this wholly frivolous action, and we AFFIRM that holding. Andres and Manuel Depineda are further put on NOTICE that any attempt by either or both of them to evade the injunction ordered restricting pro se litigation by Manuel Depineda may result in further sanctions by this court. The application to proceed without payment of fees is DENIED and the "Motion to Dismiss Sua Sponte" is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3