Duran v. King

89 F.3d 849, 1996 WL 353789
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedJune 26, 1996
Docket95-2205
StatusUnpublished

This text of 89 F.3d 849 (Duran v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duran v. King, 89 F.3d 849, 1996 WL 353789 (10th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

89 F.3d 849

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument,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.

Dwight DURAN, Lonnie Duran, Sharon Towers, all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Phillip CORDOVA, Movant-Appellant,
v.
Bruce KING, Governor; Charles Becknell, Secretary of
Criminal Justice; Levi Romero, Warden, PNM;
Robert T. Montoya, Joseph Lujan,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-2205.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 26, 1996.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Cordova, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the dismissal of his Motion For Third Party or Joinder. Construing the pleadings liberally, Mr. Cordova sought to intervene as a member of the plaintiff inmate class. The district court determined that Mr. Cordova was not a proper class member and that his claims were barred by res judicata, having been previously raised in an action that was dismissed as frivolous and with prejudice. See Cordova v. Mondragon, No. CIV 94-1143, memo. op. & order (D.N.M. March 7, 1995), affirmed, No. 94-2282, 1995 WL 656984, unpub. order & judgment (10th Cir. Nov. 8, 1995), attached as exs. B & C to Respondent's Answer Brief filed March 16, 1996. Mr. Cordova's motion was thus properly denied on grounds of res judicata. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432, 434 (10th Cir.1996).

Mr. Cordova's Notice to the Court is construed as a motion and is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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

**

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 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 ordered submitted without oral argument

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Allen v. McCurry
449 U.S. 90 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Klein v. Zavaras
80 F.3d 432 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 F.3d 849, 1996 WL 353789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duran-v-king-ca10-1996.