Clelland v. Glines , 96 F. App'x 660 ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 13 2004
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
THOMAS CLELLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-3260
(D.C. No. 02-CV-2223-KHV)
JEFF GLINES; JAMES R. PRATT; (D. Kan.)
STATE OF KANSAS; CRAWFORD
COUNTY KANSAS COURT
SERVICES OFFICE; CRAWFORD
COUNTY KANSAS ATTORNEYS
OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY , MURPHY , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Thomas Clelland, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders
granting appellee Jeffrey Glines’s motion to stay discovery, appellees’ motions to
dismiss, appellee Crawford County Attorney’s Office’s motion to set aside default
judgment, and denying Mr. Clelland’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s
June 18, 2003 order. 1
Mr. Clelland raises eighteen issues in his brief, which the
appellees have distilled into the following seven issues: 1) Did the district court
improperly dismiss Mr. Clelland’s amended complaint; 2) Did the district court
abuse its discretion by staying discovery; 3) Did the district court abuse its
discretion by setting aside the entry of default against the County Attorney’s
Office; 4) Did the district court abuse its discretion by declining to appoint an
attorney to represent Mr. Clelland; 5) Did the district court err in not expressly
ruling on all of Mr. Clelland’s filings; 6) Did the district court abuse its discretion
by declining to recuse; 7) Did the district court err in its review of Mr. Clelland’s
allegations of misconduct by counsel.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani , 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999),
and a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim for relief under
1
Although we recognize that Mr. Clelland is proceeding pro se, he failed to
attach copies of the relevant district court orders as required by 10th Cir. R.
28.2(A)(1). We admonish appellees’ counsel for not complying with Rule
28.2(B), which requires that the appellees’ brief include these rulings if the
appellant fails to include them in his brief.
-2-
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Sutton v. Utah State School for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d
1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). We review for abuse of discretion the district
court’s rulings staying discovery, see GWN Petroleum Corp. v. OK-Tex Oil &
Gas, Inc. , 998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir. 1993), setting aside the entry of default,
see Ashby v. McKenna , 331 F.3d 1148, 1152 (10th Cir. 2003), declining to
appoint counsel, see Rucks v. Boergermann , 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995),
and declining to recuse, see Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of
Colorado , 289 F.3d 648, 659 (10th Cir. 2002).
Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to
the above-mentioned standards, we conclude that the district court correctly
decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the challenged decisions for
substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its orders of August
7, 2002, December 17, 2002, January15, 2003, April 11, 2003, June 18, 2003
and August 15, 2003.
Mr. Clelland’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because he
has not presented a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal. See McIntosh v.
-3-
United States Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d 809, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1997). All other
motions filed by Mr. Clelland are DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-