Coando v. Dominion Exploration Production, Inc. , 171 F. App'x 253 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 17, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
PATRICK D. COANDO,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 05-4274
v. (D. Utah)
DOMINION EXPLORATION (D.C. No. 2:05-CV-778-PGC)
PRODUCTION, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit
Judges.
On September 19, 2005, Patrick Coando filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah against Dominion Exploration
Production, Inc. (Dominion). Among the complaint’s allegations were that (1) he
was denied his war-time treaty right as an enrolled member of the Eastern
*
After examining the brief and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the party’s request for a decision on the brief without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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.
Shoshone tribe to work on the Uinta Valley Reservation for Dominion, (2)
Dominion’s failure to hire him constituted racial discrimination, (3) Dominion
committed a breach of contract by violating certain treaties signed by the United
States, and (4) Dominion and the State of Utah committed certain acts of
terrorism on the Uinta Valley Reservation. The district court observed that since
1991 Mr. Coando had been the plaintiff in 28 different cases filed in the District
of Utah, and that Mr. Coando was subject to filing restrictions imposed by a 1993
court order, including the requirement that he obtain leave from the court before
filing any civil complaint in the District of Utah. The district court dismissed
Mr. Coando’s complaint for failure to follow the filing requirements imposed by
the 1993 order. Mr. Coando appeals, claiming that the dismissal violated certain
constitutional rights and alleging various acts of judicial misconduct. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Mr. Coando argues that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint
violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. He also argues that the
court’s refusal to accept further filings violated other provisions of the United
States Constitution, including the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection
Clause, and the Sixth Amendment. Although Mr. Coando does not explain how
the dismissal violates those constitutional rights, we construe his arguments as
challenging the constitutionality of the underlying order imposing filing
-2-
restrictions. Mr. Coando, however, cites no authority for his contentions. And in
similar circumstances we have imposed or upheld such restrictions. See, e.g.,
Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 150 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir. 1998)
(enjoining an individual “from proceeding as an appellant, or as a petitioner in an
original proceeding, without the representation of a licensed attorney admitted to
practice in this court, unless he first obtains permission to proceed pro se.”);
Coando v. Westport Resources, 85 Fed. Appx. 59, 62 (10th Cir. 2003)
(unpublished disposition) (“We note that this court regularly upholds–and enters–
orders imposing filing restrictions on plaintiffs with a demonstrated history of
filing frivolous lawsuits. See, e.g., Winslow v. Hunder (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d
314, 315-16 (10th Cir. 1994).”). Mr. Coando’s challenge to the constitutionality
of the 1993 order fails.
Mr. Coando asserts that the district judge was practicing law for the
defense and acting out of prejudice against Mr. Coando in dismissing his
complaint. He also appears to assert that the district judge engaged in ex parte
communications with the defendant. But Mr. Coando does not support these
assertions with any citations to evidence in the record, and thus we will not
consider them. See Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 939-40 (10th Cir. 1987)
(conclusions, beliefs, and speculation are not an adequate basis for recusal or
disqualification of a judge).
-3-
In addition, Mr. Coando contends that the 1993 order is “bogus” and
“manufactured,” and that the district judge committed perjury by stating that
Mr. Coando had been the plaintiff in 28 cases in the District of Utah. Yet he
points to no record evidence supporting the accusation of perjury or his claim that
he was never involved in the earlier litigation. On the contrary, the record on
appeal includes a copy of the magistrate judge’s 1992 report recommending
dismissal of Mr. Coando’s complaint as frivolous and the imposition of filing
restrictions, and the district court order adopting the report and recommendation.
This claim must fail.
Finally, Mr. Coando appears to allege that an order of this court was
improperly altered. Again, no evidence of record supports the allegation.
We AFFIRM the order of the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-4-