Jo v. Six Unkown names agents

Filing 15

Imposition of Sanctions. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/3/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00700-LTB

YOUNG YIL JO,
Plaintiff
v.
DAVID BERKEBILE,
Respondent.

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS

On April 22, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff, Young Yil Jo, to show cause within
thirty days why he should not be enjoined from proceeding as a plaintiff or applicant in
an original proceeding unless he is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to
practice in this Court or he first obtains permission to proceed pro se. Plaintiff has failed
to respond to the Court’s show cause order 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).
Filing restrictions, therefore, are appropriate in this case, 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 civil actions in this Court, of
which he received notice and an opportunity to oppose before it is implemented. Tripati,
878 F.2d at 353-54.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that to obtain permission to proceed pro se, Plaintiff
must take the following steps:
1. File a motion titled, “Motion Pursuant to Court Order
Seeking Leave to File a Pro Se Action”;
2. Attach to the motion a copy of the injunction that imposes
these recommended filing restrictions;
3. Attach to the Motion a list of all civil actions Plaintiff
currently has pending or has filed in all federal district courts,
including the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of
each case, and the current status or disposition of each
proceeding;
4. Attach to the Motion a completed Court-approved
prisoner complaint form and either pay the $400 filing fee, or
in the alternative submit a request to proceed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 on a form that is approved by this Court and
applicable to the action being filed, and attach a certified
inmate account statement as required;
5. Attach to the Motion a notarized affidavit that certifies
Plaintiff has not presented the same claims in another
2

federal district court, that the claims are not frivolous or
taken in bad faith, that the lawsuit is not interposed for any
improper purpose to harass or cause unnecessary delay,
and that the filling complies with this injunction, the Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8, all other provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil,
and the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that this Court has the power to impose still further
sanctions such as costs, attorney fees, and double costs for the filing of frivolous
actions, as well as an outright ban on certain proceedings, whether pro se or counseled.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Based on Plaintiff’s continuing vexatious litigation, and the Court’s
need to deter repetition of his conduct, see Rule 11(c)(4), the Court will assess Plaintiff
a $400 monetary sanction and strike the filings if he submits any future filings that do
not comply with these restrictions.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

3rd

day of

June

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

3