Part of a public library containing court papers related to lawsuits involving Scientology in some way. Collected to help lawyers and critics of Scientology in future lawsuits from or against this cult. Please report back if this has been of help, or send new contributions to the collection. Thanks. Andreas Heldal-Lund (heldal@online.no)

       NOTICE:  Although citation of unpublished opinions remains
       unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has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.

       (The decision of the Court is referenced in a "Table of Decisions
       Without Reported Opinions" appearing in the Federal Reporter.)

                      Barbara SCHWARZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
      CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, in Los Angeles, CA their current
     executives;  Utah State Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee.
                                  No. 94-4072.
                 United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
                                 Feb. 28, 1995.

  Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, MCKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
                            ORDER AND JUDGMENT [FN1]
  **1 After examining the briefs and 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 cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
  Barbara Schwarz appeals from the district court's dismissal of several post-
 trial motions.  Ms. Schwarz had previously filed actions for monetary and
 injunctive relief against the Church of Scientology and the Utah State
 Department of Corrections.  The district court granted the Church's motion to
 dismiss and we affirmed, concluding that Ms. Schwarz had presented no legally
 cognizable claim against the Church that entitled her to relief in federal
 court.  See Schwarz v. Church of Scientology Int'l, 9 F.3d 117 (Table),
 Nos. 93-4082, 93-4092, 1993 WL 444553 (10th Cir. Nov. 2, 1993), cert.
 denied, 114 S.Ct. 1082 (1994).
  Ms. Schwarz, who has appeared pro se throughout these proceedings, filed all
 of the post-trial motions that are the subject of this appeal after she had
 filed her notice of appeal but within one year of the district court's
 decision.  Most of the motions were filed after this court had affirmed the
 district court's ruling and after the Supreme Court had denied certiorari.
 Several of the motions sought to correct alleged errors in the docket sheet and
 transcripts and to protest delays in receiving a transcript.  Ms. Schwarz also
 requested that the district judge declare a mistrial and recuse himself.  The
 district court held a hearing after certiorari had been denied and ruled from
 the bench that any inaccuracies in the record were to be corrected.  However
 the court denied the motions pertaining to Ms. Schwarz' remaining claims
 because the case had been dismissed.
  The motions which the court denied are premised on Ms. Schwarz' assertion that
 she is entitled to relief in federal court on her claim against the Church.
 [FN2]  However, it is the law of the case that she is not.  Under the law-of-
 the-case doctrine, once this court has finally determined an issue and the
 Supreme Court has denied certiorari, the district court is bound by that
 decision in subsequent proceedings in the same case.  See Anthony v. Baker,
 955 F.2d 1395, 1397 & n. 1 (10th Cir.1992);  Mason v. Texaco, Inc., 948 F.2d
 1546, 1553 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1941 (1992).  The
 doctrine encompasses both a court's explicit decisions and those issues decided
 by necessary implication.  See Anthony, 955 F.2d at 1397 n. 1. Because this
 court has already concluded that Ms. Schwarz' claims against the church are
 subject to dismissal, and because the substance of the motions at issue here
 are grounded on those claims, the district court correctly dismissed the
 motions. [FN3]
  AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

      FN1. 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.

      FN2. In addressing this appeal, we assume without deciding that the
     district court correctly entertained these pro se post-trial motions as
     cognizable in that court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
     We also observe that although Ms. Schwarz' recusal motion is not included
     in the record on appeal, the pleadings we do have indicate that she
     believes the district judge was biased because he did not rule in her
     favor.  "[A] motion to recuse cannot be based solely on adverse rulings."
     Willner v. University of Kansas, 848 F.2d 1023, 1028 (10th Cir.1988),
     cert. denied 488 U.S. 1031 (1989).

      FN3. We grant Ms. Schwarz leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  We deny the
     remaining motions she had filed in this court as rendered moot by our
     affirmance of the district court's dismissal.

End of file...