Case Information
*1
Case 1:96-cv-00079-ZLW Document 35 Filed 02/21/06 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
(303)844-3157
FILLED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DENVER, COLORADO
FEB 212006
GREGORY C. LANGHAM
CLERK
Ms. Martha Ann Paluch Mr. William J. Leone Office of the United States Attorney 1225 17th Street Suite 700 Denver, CO 80202 Mr. John G. Westine, Jr. USP- Marion #93555-012 P.O. Box 2000
Route 5 Marion, IL 62959
| Re: | 06-1042, In Re: Westine | | :-- | :-- | | | Dist/Ag docket: 95-cv-2350-JLK | | | 96-cv-79-ZLW |
Dear Counsel and Petitioner: Enclosed is a copy of the court's final order entered today in this case.
Please contact this office if you have questions. Sincerely, Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk, Court of Appeals
clk:sts cc: Gregory C. Langham, Clerk
*2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
In re:
JOHN G. WESTINE, JR., In re:
Petitioner.
No. 06-1042
ORDER
Filed February 21, 2006
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
John G. Westine has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In order to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief:
A petitioner must establish clear abuse of discretion or conduct amounting to usurpation of judicial power by the district court. Also, a petitioner must establish that he lacks alternatives to obtain the relief he desires and that his right to the writ is clear and indisputable.
Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1447 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotations and citations omitted). Mr. Westine states in his petition that he is seeking a determination from this court "into whether or not the judgments detaining [him] are void."
Pet. at 3. He has not, however, identified any abuse of discretion or conduct amounting to usurpation of judicial authority by the district court nor has he established that he has no alternative remedies. In fact, Mr. Westine has two
*3 pending appeals before this court that seek review of the district court's orders denying his two motions to reopen his habeas case based on his assertion that the judgments holding him in jail are void. The petition is therefore DENIED.
Mr. Westine also seeks leave to proceed in this matter without prepayment of costs or fees. Because his mandamus petition is frivolous, that request is also DENIED.
Because of Mr. Westine's long history of repeatedly challenging the same convictions and sentences before this court, [1] and due to his recent flurry of filing activity in the district court and this court, we caution him that any further frivolous original proceedings or appeals may subject him to filing restrictions. See Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994).
Entered for the Court ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk By:
NOTES
1 See Westine v. United States, 120 F.3d 271 (10th Cir. 1997); Westine v. Perrill, 103 F.3d 145 (10th Cir. 1996), Westine v. Perrill, 60 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1995).