Garrett v. Seymour ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
February 23, 2007
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DW AY NE G AR RETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-7029
(D .C. Nos. CV-05-472-W H,
STEPHA NIE K. SEYM OU R; JAM ES CV-06-42-W H)
H. PAY NE; W ILLIAM B. GU THR IE; (E.D. Okla.)
C AROLY N ZU N D A ; FR AN K H.
SEA Y ; JOH N C. PO RFILIO ;
STEPH EN H . A N D ER SO N ;
DEANELL R. TACHA; BOBBY R.
B ALD O CK ; WA D E B RO RB Y;
D A V ID M . EB EL; PA U L J. K ELLY,
JR.; ROBERT H. HENRY; M ARY
BECK BR ISCO E; CA RLOS F.
LU CERO; M IC HA EL R . M U RPHY;
HARRIS L. HARTZ; M ICHAEL W .
M C CO N NELL; M O N RO E G .
M CKAY; ARDELL SCHULER;
OPAL A . CA RTER; SUSAN S.
BRANDON; SHELDON J.
SPER LIN G ,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
*
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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Before O ’B RIE N and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and BRO W N, ** District Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant Dwayne Garrett, proceeding pro se, appeals from the
district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaints. W e have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. M r. Garrett has engaged in frivolous and
abusive litigation; filing restrictions are necessary to arrest that practice.
In the first of two actions that form the basis of this appeal, M r. Garrett
alleged that the defendants, who are federal judges, federal-court clerks and staff,
and a United States attorney and staff, deprived him of in excess of $1,500,000 by
either blocking law ful process or submitting a false document. M r. Garrett did
not allege any facts describing the manner in which defendants acted but asserted
that their conduct violated a variety of federal criminal statutes, including
racketeering, conspiracy, and mail fraud. In a second action filed two months
after the first, he alleged that three of the defendants, acting in conspiracy with
the rest of the defendants, blocked the district court clerk’s entry of default and
default judgment, which also deprived him of in excess of $1,500,000 and was in
violation of federal criminal statutes prohibiting conspiracy and influencing court
officers. In both actions he sought a jury trial, treble damages, and an order
**
The H onorable W esley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, District of K ansas,
sitting by designation.
-2-
compelling defendants to terminate their association with the federal court
system.
The district court consolidated the actions and dismissed the complaints
sua sponte for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding
that the complaints were conclusory, that M r. Garrett could not prevail on the
facts alleged, and that allowing him an opportunity to amend his complaint would
be futile. The court also noted that M r. G arrett had cast aspersions at defendants.
For example, he referred to various defendants as “thugs,” R., Doc. 1 at 2,
“dumb,” id. at 8, “pathetic,” id., and part of a judicial system that is “absolutely
shamelessly corrupt and in fact down right [sic] evil,” id. at 9. The district court
denied M r. Garrett’s motion to vacate the judgment and imposed filing
restrictions on him because of his lengthy history of abusive pro se federal
litigation in the United States District Court for both the Eastern District and the
Northern District of Oklahoma and because of his apparent intent to harass the
defendants in these actions. This appeal followed.
W e review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
under R ule 12(b)(6). Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d
1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). W e construe M r. Garrett’s pleadings and other
papers liberally. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).
M r. Garrett’s argument that the district court lacked the pow er to dismiss
his complaint sua sponte is meritless. See id. at 1110 (explaining that sua sponte
-3-
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate “when it is patently obvious that the
plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity
to amend his complaint would be futile” (quotation omitted)). Mr. Garrett’s
allegations are wholly conclusory, and he has not shown that amendment would
not be futile.
Equally meritless is his assertion that the district court clerk was obligated
to enter default judgment against defendants in the first action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) because he requested a sum certain. First, it is unclear
from the record if defendants were in default at the time the district court
sua sponte dismissed the case. Second, even if they were in default, the clerk had
not entered default under Rule 55(a), a prerequisite for the entry of a default
judgment under Rule 55(b)(1). Third, even if the clerk should have entered
default, the clerk had no power to enter a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(1)
because M r. Garrett’s claims against the defendants were not merely for a sum
certain but included equitable relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), (2) (permitting
clerk to enter default judgment only when plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain).
W hether to enter a default judgment therefore w as a matter for the district court
under Rule 55(b)(2), and it was within the district court’s discretion to deny
M r. Garrett’s request for a default judgment because his complaints w ere legally
insufficient to state a claim. See Granbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463, 1468
-4-
(10th Cir. 1987) (district courts have “broad discretion in deciding a default
judgment question”).
The remainder of M r. Garrett’s arguments are irrelevant or meritless, and
he has not challenged the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions.
M r. Garrett’s motions to strike appellees’ brief and to disqualify appellees’
counsel are wholly without merit and are denied. His motion to disqualify the
defendant-judges of this circuit is denied as moot because none of those judges
are on the panel in this case. His motion to disqualify most of the other United
States Circuit Judges is frivolous and therefore denied.
W e conclude that this appeal is frivolous, abusive, and malicious. 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 under
appropriate circumstances. Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989)
(per curiam). Injunctions restricting further filing are appropriate where (1) the
litigant’s lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the court provides
guidelines as to what the litigant may do to obtain its permission to file an action;
and (3) the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to oppose the court’s order
before it is implemented. See id. at 353-54.
Since 2002, Garrett has filed five other unsuccessful appeals w ith this
court. See G arrett v. Albert, 111 F. App’x 997 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirmed on
ground of judicial immunity); Garrett v. Esser, 81 F. App’x 720 (10th Cir. 2003)
-5-
(per curiam) (no merit to appeal); Garrett v. Schuler, 81 F. App’x 720 (10th Cir.
2003) (per curiam) (no merit to appeal); Garrett v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n,
56 F. App’x 442 (10th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (affirmed on ground that Garrett
had not objected to magistrate judge’s recommendation); Garrett v. Esser,
53 F. App’x 530 (10th Cir. 2002) (affirmed on ground that Garrett had violated
filing restrictions imposed by Northern District of Oklahoma). Thus we have
repeatedly found his appeals to be without merit and have summarily dismissed
two of them with no discussion. His filings in this frivolous appeal are replete
with ad hominem attacks on the defendants, the district court judge, and
defendants’ counsel, and far exceed the bounds of propriety even considering his
pro se status. Of particular note are the vile and insulting references to the
district court judge contained in M r. Garrett’s notice of appeal, where he states
that the judge is “stupid,” “a Constitutional rapist,” “a ‘poster child’ for judicial
reform,” and “childish,” and that the judge “presumed jurisdiction to fix the case
for [his] business associates.” Aplee. App. at A66.
In 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma imposed filing restrictions on M r. Garrett for his pattern of frequent
and abusive litigation, and he has failed to comply with those restrictions on at
least one occasion. See Garrett v. Esser, 53 F. App’x at 531 (describing
M r. Garrett’s violation of those restrictions). As noted above, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma has imposed filing restrictions
-6-
in this case based on his history of filing frivolous, malicious, and abusive
complaints. W e now do the same.
“The 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.” Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315
(10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (quotation and alteration omitted). “[W]here, as
here, a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly
abusive, restrictions are appropriate.” Id. (quotation omitted). Therefore, subject
to M r. Garrett’s opportunity to object, as described below, we impose the
following reasonable filing restrictions on future filings in this court by
M r. Garrett “commensurate with our inherent power to enter orders ‘necessary or
appropriate’ in aid of our jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)).
M r. Garrett is ENJOINED from further filings in this case (except any
objections to these filing restrictions) or from proceeding as a petitioner in an
original proceeding or as an appellant in this court unless he is represented by a
licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court or unless he first obtains
permission to proceed pro se. To obtain permission to proceed pro se, M r. Garrett
must take the follow ing steps:
1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file an
original proceeding or to proceed pro se on appeal. If M r. Garrett seeks to
-7-
proceed pro se on appeal, he must file the petition with the clerk of this court not
more than ten days after filing his notice of appeal in the district court;
2. Include in the petition the following information:
A. A list of all lawsuits currently pending or filed previously with
this court, including the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of each case,
and the current status or disposition of the appeal or original proceeding; and
B. A list apprising this court of all outstanding injunctions or orders
limiting M r. Garrett’s access to federal court, including orders and injunctions
requiring him to seek leave to file matters pro se or requiring him to be
represented by an attorney, including the name, number, and citation, if
applicable, of all such orders or injunctions; and
3. File with the clerk of this court a notarized affidavit, in proper legal
form, which recites the issues M r. Garrett seeks to present, including a short
discussion of the legal basis asserted therefor, and describing with particularity
the order being challenged. The affidavit also must certify, to the best of
M r. Garrett’s knowledge, that the legal arguments being raised are not frivolous
or made in bad faith, that they are warranted by existing law or a good faith
argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, that the
appeal or other matter is not interposed for any improper purpose such as delay or
to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, and that he will comply with all
appellate and local rules of this court. The affidavit must be filed with the
-8-
petition and is therefore subject to the same ten-day filing deadline as the petition
in the case of a pro se appeal.
These documents shall be submitted to the clerk of this court. The matter
will be dismissed for failure to prosecute if the required documents are not
submitted, are submitted in an improper form, or are untimely submitted. If the
matter is not dismissed for failure to prosecute, the clerk shall forward the
documents to the Chief Judge or her designee for review to determine whether to
permit M r. Garrett to file an original proceeding or to pursue an appeal. W ithout
the approval of the C hief Judge or her designee, the matter w ill be dismissed. If
the Chief Judge or her designee approves the petition, an order shall be entered
indicating that the matter shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit Rules.
These filing restrictions are effective immediately, but temporarily. They
shall remain in effect for forty days. M r. Garrett shall have fifteen days from the
date of this order to file written objections to the imposition of permanent filing
restrictions. The response is limited to fifteen pages. If M r. Garrett does not
timely file objections, the temporary filing restrictions shall become permanent.
If M r. Garrett timely files objections, the temporary filing restrictions shall expire
after forty days unless this court extends them. After considering timely filed
objections this court will decide whether to vacate, modify, or make permanent
the temporary filing restrictions.
-9-
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED. M r. Garrett’s pending
motions are denied. M r. Garrett is ENJOINED from further filings in accordance
with the restrictions set out in this order and judgment, subject to his opportunity
to file objections as stated herein.
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-10-