Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
JUN 6 2003
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 02-1371
(D.C. No. 02-K-88 (MJW))
(D. Colo.)
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal.
-2-
-3-
entered its judgment awarding attorneys fees to six defendants. Plaintiffs filed a
second notice of appeal on August 14, 2002.
II.
As a preliminary matter, we consider the contentions of defendants First
USA Bank and Security Services Federal Credit Union that this court lacks
jurisdiction over plaintiffs appeal of the district courts April 15, 2002, final
judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint.
Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld only as interested parties in the caption of their
complaint, the body of that pleading indicates that plaintiffs sought a writ of
-4-
that when the United States intervenes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2403, it becomes
a party to the action for purposes of determining the time to appeal). While
a timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional, the technical
requirements of the notice itself are liberally construed to avoid injustice.
See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). Plaintiffs pro se notice of
appeal filed in the proper district court on May 23, 2002, though far from perfect,
-5-
conveyed their intent to appeal the judgment in District Court No. 02-K-88, and is
sufficient for this court to reach the merits of this case.
III.
The district court concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a federal claim
and granted defendants various motions to dismiss under the standards set forth
in Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) for evaluating the
complaints of pro se plaintiffs. R., doc. 127 at 2.
dismiss a complaint for, among other things, failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) if it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff[s] can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which
would entitle [them] to relief.
[W]e review de novo the district courts grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
12(b)(6). GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
To the extent that plaintiffs notice of appeal also requests a transfer of the
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
that request is denied.
-6-
-7-
Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955, 968 (10th Cir. 2002) (award of attorneys fees).
The district court denied plaintiffs motion to recuse for failure to meet the
objective standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. 455. Plaintiffs have not provided,
nor have we found, anything from the record to convince us that the district court
abused its discretion in making this determination or that the trial judge was in
any way biased in this matter. Likewise, plaintiffs have directed us to nothing in
the record to demonstrate the district court acted beyond its settled authority to
sanction conduct that abuses the judicial process.
Inc., 111 F.3d 758, 765 (10th Cir. 1997). As noted previously, the district court
found plaintiffs claims to be patently and egregiously groundless, a finding
undisputed by plaintiffs in either the district court or in this court on appeal.
Moreover, our review of the record confirms that plaintiffs have acted in bad faith
-8-
519, 520-21 (1972)). Accordingly, due to plaintiffs pro se status, we have read
their brief on appeal with tolerance, affording them a great deal of leniency in
articulating their arguments of error. Nevertheless, plaintiffs obvious
dissatisfaction with the outcome of their case does not persuade us that the
district court erred in its disposition of this matter. We have carefully reviewed
plaintiffs brief under the standard of liberality announced in
Haines , and we
conclude that plaintiffs remaining allegations of error are without merit. Any
remaining requests for relief by plaintiffs are also denied.
We note that, due primarily to plaintiffs actions in this case and their
[g]roundless and vexatious litigation in related case No. 02-RB-433, the district
court imposed significant filing restrictions on plaintiffs to curb their abusive
litigation tactics. Sri David Conrad Roberts, Fred Patten, and Terry Patten v.
U.S. Marshals Serv., No. 02-RB-433, doc. 34 at 2 (D. Colo. June 4, 2002).
-9-
IV.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-10-