Kucera v. Central Intelligence Agency
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 MOTION for Protective Order, 21 MOTION to Seal, 20 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by District Judge James O. Browning. (vv)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GREGORY EDWARD KUCERA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
No. CIV 18-0094 JB\GJF
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING FRIVOLOUS
MOTIONS AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiff’s Stipulated Protective
Order and Request for Injunction Regarding Current Litigation, filed August 23, 2018
(Doc. 16)(“Protective Order 1”); (ii) the Plaintiff’s Stipulated Protective Order and Request for
Injunction Regarding Current Litigation, filed August 24, 2018 (Doc. 20)(“Protective Order 2”),1
and (iii) the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal[;] Motion to Review Highly Classified Source
Information in Association to Covert Live Fire Operations and/or Their Counter Covert
Counterparts[;] Motion to Electronically File[; and] Motion for a Hearing, filed September 6,
2018 (Doc. 21)(“Ex Parte Motion”)(collectively, “Motions”). Having reviewed the record, the
Court determines that Plaintiff Gregory Edward Kucera’s Motions constitute frivolous litigation
intended to burden the Court’s judicial resources. Accordingly, and for the reasons articulated
below, the Court orders that Kucera’s Motions be denied and that Kucera show cause why the
Court should not restrict him from filing further documents in the above-captioned cause.
1
These two documents, with the exception of one formatting change, are identical. See
Protective Order 1 at 1-2; Protective Order 2 at 1-2. More importantly, they state that they are
stipulated. They are not stipulated orders.
KUCERA’S HISTORY OF FRIVOLOUS FILING
This lawsuit is one of six civil cases that Kucera has initiated in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico since August, 2017. See Kucera v. Choi, No. CIV 17-0789
KG\SCY (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Kucera v. United States, No. CIV 17-1228
JB\KK (dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Kucera v. Central Intelligence
Agency, No. CIV 18-0094 JB\GJF (this case -- dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction);
Kucera v. Los Alamos National Labs., No. CIV 18-0095 JCH\SCY (dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction); Kucera v. Sandia Corp., No. CIV 18-0166 WJ\LF (dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction); Kucera v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Labs., No. CIV 180150 WJ\LF (dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction). The Court has dismissed each of
Kucera’s cases for similar grounds in that none of his claims featured a sufficient basis to survive
prima facie jurisdictional or substantive scrutiny. Nevertheless, and in spite of this matter having
already been dismissed, Kucera continues to tax the Court’s resources with his vexatious and
frivolous filings. The Court’s order designs to end that practice now.
COURT POWER TO IMPOSE FILING RESTRICTIONS
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has discussed the Court’s power
to impose filing restrictions and the procedure for imposing filing restrictions:
“[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)
(per curiam) (citation omitted). “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). “Even onerous conditions
may be imposed upon a litigant as long as they are designed to assist the . . . court
in curbing the particular abusive behavior involved,” except that they “cannot be
so burdensome . . . as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.” Id.
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “Litigiousness alone will not
-2-
support an injunction restricting filing activities. However, injunctions are proper
where the litigant’s abusive and lengthy history is properly set forth.” Tripati,
878 F.2d at 353 (citations omitted). “[T]here must be some guidelines as to what
[a party] must do to obtain the court's permission to file an action.” Id. at 354.
“In addition, [the party] is entitled to notice and an opportunity to oppose the
court’s order before it is instituted.” Id. A hearing is not required; a written
opportunity to respond is sufficient. See id.
Landrith v. Schmidt, 732 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2013).
ANALYSIS
Having denied Kucera’s Motions, the Court proposes to impose filing restrictions on
Kucera. The Court orders Kucera to show cause why the Court should not enter the proposed
filing restrictions. Absent a response from Kucera within fourteen days from the date of this
Order, the Court will impose the proposed filing restrictions.
I.
THE COURT PROPOSES FILING RESTRICTIONS.
The Court finds that filing restrictions are appropriate to safeguard the Court from
expending valuable resources addressing future frivolous filings. The Court proposes to impose
the following filing restrictions on Kucera.
The Court will enjoin Kucera from making further filings in this case except objections to
this order, a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, or filings directly related to
his pending appeal before the Tenth Circuit. The Court orders the Clerk of Court to return to
Kucera -- without filing -- any additional submissions that Kucera makes in this case other than
objections to this order, a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, or filings
directly related to his pending appeal before the Tenth Circuit unless: (i) a licensed attorney who
is admitted to practice before this Court and has appeared in this action signs the proposed filing;
or (ii) Kucera has obtained permission to proceed pro se in this action in accordance with the
procedures for new pleadings set forth below.
-3-
II.
THE COURT GIVES KUCERA THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
The Court orders Kucera to show cause within fourteen days from the date of this order
why this Court should not enter the proposed filing restrictions. The Court limits Kucera’s
written objections to the proposed filing restrictions to ten pages. Absent a timely response to
this Order to Show Cause, the proposed filing restrictions will enter fourteen days from the date
of this Order and will apply to any matter filed after that time. If Kucera files a timely response,
the proposed filing restrictions will not become operative unless the Court so orders, after it has
considered the response and ruled on Kucera’s objections.
IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Plaintiff’s Stipulated Protective Order and Request for
Injunction Regarding Current Litigation, filed August 23, 2018 (Doc. 16), the Plaintiff’s
Stipulated Protective Order and Request for Injunction Regarding Current Litigation, filed
August 24, 2018 (Doc. 20), and the Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion to Seal[,] Motion to Review
Highly Classified Source Information in Association to Covert Live Fire Operations and/or Their
Counter Covert Counterparts[,] Motion to Electronically File[, and] Motion for a Hearing, filed
September 6, 2018 (Doc. 21) are denied; and (ii) within fourteen days from entry of this Order,
Plaintiff Gregory Edward Kucera shall show cause why this Court should not impose the
proposed filing restrictions described above; if Kucera does not timely file objections, the
proposed filing restrictions shall take effect fourteen days from the date of this Order and will
apply to any documents filed after that time; if Kucera timely files objections, the proposed filing
restrictions will take effect only upon entry of a subsequent order.
-4-
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Parties:
Gregory Edward Kucera
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Plaintiff pro se
-5-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?