Crownhart v. Suthers et al

Filing 5

ORDER imposing sanctions, dismissing this action with prejudice, and denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/14/13. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00959-BNB
EARL J. CROWNHART,
Applicant,
v.
JOHN SUTHERS, and
JAMES X. QUINN,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AND IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

On May 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Applicant, Earl J.
Crownhart, to respond and show cause within thirty days why he should not be enjoined
from filing any civil action in this Court without representation of an attorney. Applicant
has failed to respond within the time allowed.
“[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and
there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is
frivolous or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations
omitted) (per curiam). “Federal courts have the inherent power under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651(a) to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions in appropriate circumstances.” See Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F,3d 1070,
1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar. Ass’n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th
Cir. 2006); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 351 (10th Cir. 1989). “There is strong
precedent establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate
circumstances,” Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986), and “where, as
here, a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive,
restrictions are appropriate,” In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994).
The Court has reviewed the cases Magistrate Judge Boland referred to in the
May 8 Order to Show Cause. It is apparent that Applicant is not capable of proceeding
pro se in litigation in this Court and an injunction restricting further filings is appropriate,
as provided for in Tripati, 878 F.2d at 351. Applicant has a lengthy and abusive history,
and the Court has provided a guideline to him to obtain permission to file an action,
which he received notice and an opportunity to oppose before it is implemented. Tripati,
878 F.2d at 353-54. The Court, therefore, will enjoin Applicant from filing any future pro
se actions in this Court.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied
for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If
Applicant files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Applicant is enjoined from filing any future civil actions in this
Court, in which he is the proponent of a claim, without representation of an attorney
licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, unless he first obtains leave of Court by a
judicial officer to proceed pro se in the action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that in any future pro se pleadings Applicant submits to
2

this Court the pleadings shall be reviewed by a judicial officer pursuant to
D.C.COLO.CivR 8.2 as follows: (1) first by a magistrate judge to determine whether the
filing is without merit, repetitive, frivolous, or is not in keeping with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; and
(2) second by a district judge, if a magistrate judge finds the pleading to be without
merit, repetitive, frivolous, or not in keeping with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, who shall determine
whether or not the pleading should proceed. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Application is denied and the action is dismissed
with prejudice pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

14th day of

June

, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

3