64 F.3d 669: Michael C. Antonelli, Petitioner-appellant, v. Patrick Kane, Regional Director, United States Bureau Ofprisons, Respondent-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 64 F.3d 669
Aug. 16, 1995
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT1
After examining Petitioner-Appellant's brief2 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Mr. Antonelli appeals the dismissal by the district court of this mandamus action, brought against Mr. Patrick Kane, Regional Director of the United States Bureau of Prisons. The district court found that the claims underlying the present action had been raised and decided adversely to Mr. Antonelli in a prior habeas petition in Illinois.3 The district court also noted that Mr. Antonelli had initiated at least five other unsuccessful mandamus actions against a variety of federal defendants, all predicated upon identical alleged constitutional violations. The district court consequently dismissed the petition.
We affirm for the reasons given by the district court.4 Mr. Antonelli has made no attempt to demonstrate cause or prejudice that would justify reconsideration of the issues decided in his previous actions. He cannot therefore attempt to re-litigate his case simply by altering the name of the defendant.
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470
The Respondent-Appellee did not file a brief in this case
After a number of parole violations, a parole violator warrant was issued for Mr. Antonelli and he was subsequently arrested. He has persistently argued that his arrest and subsequent incarceration were invalid because he was not immediately served with a copy of the warrant and did not receive a preliminary revocation hearing within the applicable time limit
We grant Mr. Antonelli's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis