Williams v. Madden , 9 F. App'x 996 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                                                        F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUN 13 2001
    TENTH CIRCUIT                     PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    PAUL WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    TIMOTHY CHARLES MADDEN;
    TAMARA S. PENINGTON
    CARMICHAEL; NANCY PIFER, also
    known as Nancy Berry; STEVEN R.
    POLIDORI; HELEN R. STONE;
    HAYDEN HOLL THOMPSON;
    SHERYL RAE THOMPSON;
    No. 00-1330
    STEPHEN M. LEE; F.H.T., INC., also
    (D.C. No. 00-S-582)
    known as Hastings Pork Corporation,
    (Colorado)
    a Nebraska corporation;
    GREENWOOD PLAZA (DENVER)
    ASSOCIATES LIMITED
    PARTNERSHP, a Colorado Limited
    partnership; MABEL T. ERICKSON
    IRREVOCABLE TRUST, with
    Hayden Thompson as its sole
    beneficiary; ALL PERSONS
    CLAIMING ANY INTEREST IN THE
    REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED
    HEREIN,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    After examining appellant’s brief and the 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) and 10th Cir. R.
    Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.
    Paul Williams brought this pro se action asserting claims under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     and state law against numerous defendants. The district court dismissed the
    action as frivolous, pointing out that Mr. Williams has previously brought
    virtually identical claims unsuccessfully three times. 1 Mr. Williams appeals and
    we affirm.
    34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and
    judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
    res judicata, or 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.
    1
    In dismissing this action, the district court relied on authority approving
    the dismissal of repetitious litigation reasserting virtually identical causes of
    action. Mr. Williams filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the authority upon
    which the district court relied was addressed to in forma pauperis actions and that
    because he had paid the filing fee it did not apply to him. The court denied the
    motion, pointing out that it has inherent authority to dismiss a complaint as
    frivolous and malicious regardless of the plaintiff’s filing status and citing
    Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 
    490 U.S. 296
    , 307-08 (1989). Although Mr.
    Williams does not challenge this ruling on appeal, we note our agreement with the
    district court that while the in forma pauperis statute authorizes courts to dismiss
    a frivolous or malicious action, “there is little doubt they would have power to do
    so even in the absence of this statutory provision.” Id.; see also Fitzgerald v.
    First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 
    221 F.3d 362
    , 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per
    curiam).
    -2-
    The events underlying this lawsuit occurred over ten years ago. 2 As
    described by the district court:
    All of Mr. Williams’ claims in this action arise out of a series
    of events that began in 1979. Mr. Williams alleges that he was
    involved in various real estate transactions that ultimately led to his
    convictions in Colorado state court for criminal impersonation and
    theft. Mr. Williams contends that the alleged victim of the criminal
    impersonation actually was murdered and that one of the defendants
    assumed the victim’s identity in order to secure Plaintiff’s conviction
    in that case. He maintains that in both state court criminal cases a
    group of public and private individuals conspired to deprive him of
    fair trials by perjuring themselves and by failing to disclose
    exculpatory evidence.
    Rec., vol. I, doc. 20 at 2. One of Mr. Williams’ previous attempts to bring this
    claim in federal district court was dismissed without prejudice for failure to
    comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal. 3
    See Williams v. Walters, No. 90-1317, 
    1991 WL 47141
     (10th Cir. Mar. 21, 1991).
    In affirming the dismissal, we noted that Mr. Williams “earlier brought two
    similar lawsuits against many of the same defendants. The district court
    dismissed without prejudice those complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
    2
    Defendants contend on appeal that Mr. Williams’ lawsuit is subject to
    dismissal on both res judicata and statute of limitations grounds. In view of our
    conclusion that the action was correctly dismissed as frivolous and malicious, we
    do not address these arguments further, although we note that they carry
    considerable force.
    3
    The instant complaint and amended complaint, both of which run over 30
    pages, would likewise be subject to dismissal for failure to contain a short and
    plain statement of a claim showing a right to legal relief.
    -3-
    Plaintiffs refiled essentially the same lawsuit three times, apparently electing to
    stand on their complaint.” 
    Id.
     at **2 n.1.
    The last attempt by Mr. Williams to bring a virtually identical claim against
    most of the defendants named here was filed when the immediately preceding
    claim was still pending appeal. The district court dismissed that claim with
    prejudice. Williams v. Larson, No., 91-Z-178 (D. Colo. Oct. 7, 1991), appeal
    dismissed, No. 91-1365 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 1992).
    We have carefully reviewed the history of Mr. Williams’ attempts to
    litigate his claims and the pleadings he has filed in this action. We are convinced
    that the district court correctly characterized the instant proceeding as repetitive,
    vexatious and frivolous. Indeed, the facts here are very similar to those in
    Fitzgerald, 
    221 F.3d 362
    , in which the court deemed frivolous a lawsuit
    reasserting claims that had already been dismissed twice.
    Accordingly, the order of dismissal is AFFIRMED. 4
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Circuit Judge
    4
    Mr. Williams’ request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-1330

Citation Numbers: 9 F. App'x 996

Judges: Brorby, McKAY, Seymour

Filed Date: 6/13/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023