Case Title: RICHARD V. GOSE and CELESTE M. GOSE V. CITY OF DOUGLAS, WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-09-0133

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
RICHARD V. GOSE and CELESTE M. GOSE V. CITY OF DOUGLAS, WYOMING2009 WY 131218 P.3d 945Case Number: S-09-0133Decided: 10/30/2009
 October 
Term, A.D. 2009

 
 
RICHARD 
V. GOSE and CELESTE M. 
GOSE,Appellants(Plaintiffs),v.CITY OF DOUGLAS, 
WYOMING,Appellee(Defendant).

 
 
ORDER 
OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE

 
 

[¶1]      This 
matter 
came before the Court upon its own motion following a review of cases recently 
recommended to this Court's expedited docket.  After a careful review of this matter, 
this Court concludes that the "Brief of Appellant[s]" should be stricken from 
this Court's files due to Appellant's repeated use of disrespectful language 
against the district court, this Court, and others.  With the brief having been stricken, 
this Court concludes that the order that is the subject of this appeal, the 
district court's "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary 
Judgment," should be summarily affirmed. 

 
 

[¶2]      Over one hundred 
years ago, this Court indicated that it would strike briefs that include 
disrespectful language.  In Eggart v. Dunning, 15 Wyo. 487, 89 P. 1022, 1024, (1907), the Court 
wrote:

 
 
            
We feel that it is due this court to refer to another matter before 
closing this opinion.  Counsel for 
plaintiff in error has strayed far from the well-beaten path of good 
ethics.  He takes occasion in his 
brief to criticize this court in disrespectful language for its recent decision 
in Burns v. C. B. & Q. Ry. 
Co., 14 Wyo. 498, 85 Pac. 379, and in which case he was counsel for the 
unsuccessful party.  That decision 
has no bearing upon the questions in this case, and the reference to it with the 
language used excludes any idea of his act in so doing as being other than 
gratuitous.  This court is not 
over-sensitive to criticism couched in respectful language, but when a brief is 
filed, which carries with it language that is disrespectful, whether 
intentionally so or not, such act is inexcusable.  It is due to the attorneys practicing at 
the bar of this court to say that it has never had occasion to refer to such 
conduct before.  We have refrained 
from striking the brief from the files, but take this occasion to say that a 
repetition of such conduct will subject a party to the penalty at least of 
having his brief stricken from the files.

 
 

See 
also Application of Stone, 
77 Wyo. 1, 305 P.2d 777, 786, 
(1957) ("The majority view among state courts is in accord with these Federal 
cases in holding that the filing of insulting and scurrilous letters or 
pleadings constitutes a contempt . . . .  
However, it will be noted that in none of these cases was there a continued campaign of invective of the 
nature sent to this court by the defendant herein").   

 
 

[¶3]      More recently, 
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has written:

 
 
Plaintiff's 
briefs on appeal do little more than attempt to impugn (without basis) the 
integrity of the district judge. Such writings are intolerable, and we will 
not tolerate them.  "Due to the very 
nature of the court as an institution, it must and does have an inherent power 
to impose order, respect, decorum, silence, and compliance with lawful mandates. 
This power is organic, without need of a statute or rule for its definition, and 
it is necessary to the exercise of all other powers."  United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 461 (6th Cir. 1993).  "If 
the complaint or other pleadings are abusive or contain offensive language, they 
may be stricken sua sponte under the 
inherent powers of the court."  Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 
(10th Cir. 1981) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) ("Upon the court's own initiative 
at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient 
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 
matter.")).  In Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302 (5th 
Cir. 1978), the court dismissed an appeal with prejudice because the appellant's 
notice of appeal contained "vile and insulting references to the trial 
judge."  Although recognizing the 
leniency typically given to pro se plaintiffs, the court stated: "This 
court simply will not allow liberal pleading rules and pro se practice to be a 
vehicle for abusive documents. Our pro se practice is a shield against the 
technical requirements of a past age; it is not a sword with which to insult a 
trial judge."  Id. at 303.  See also Carrigan v. California State 
Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 564 (9th Cir. 1959) ("Perhaps the easiest 
procedure in this case would be to dismiss the entire appeal as frivolous, and 
strike the briefs and pleadings filed by appellant . . . as either scandalous, 
impertinent, scurrilous, and/or without relevancy.  Undoubtedly such action would be 
justified by this Court.") A like response is called for in this case.  

 
 

Garrett 
v. Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer, 
425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. Okla. 2005).

 
 

[¶4]      In their brief, 
the Appellants repeatedly criticize, with disrespectful language, the district 
court judge who entered the "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for 
Summary Judgment."  Appellants also 
criticize, with disrespectful language, the district court judge who formerly 
presided in this matter.  In 
addition, Appellants criticize this Court, although those criticisms pale in 
comparison to the repeated criticisms of said district court judges. Leaving no 
stone unturned, Appellants also use their brief as a forum to cast aspersions at 
the Federal District Court judge who presided over Appellants' federal 
case.  In addition, Appellants 
include innuendo about the potential for bribing judges.  Last but not least, the Appellants 
criticize the members of a particular religion.  

 
 

[¶5]      While this Court, 
like any court, must not be over-sensitive to criticism, Appellants' repeated 
use of disrespectful language goes beyond the bounds of what this Court can be 
expected to tolerate.  This Court 
concludes that Appellants' brief must be stricken from this Court's file.  This Court further concludes that the 
district court's "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary 
Judgment" should be summarily affirmed.  
Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. 
Newell, 91 P. 697, 698 (Okla. 1907) ("The 
so-called brief is stricken from the record and ordered removed from the files. 
 And, for the reason that the 
plaintiff in error has failed to file a brief as required by the rules of this 
court, the appeal is dismissed"); Tomlinson v. Territory, 33 P. 950, 955 (N.M. 1893). 

 
 

[¶6]      While a curious 
onlooker may be interested in the exact nature of Appellants' criticisms and 
disrespectful language, this Court will not sully this order, or this Court's 
files, with the language used by Appellants.  Erwin v. Harris, 254 P. 718, 719 (Okla. 1927) ("We 
refrain from copying the language used by plaintiff in error in the brief, for 
the very reason . . . that it is our duty to protect the files of this court 
from becoming the permanent receptacle of such a document").  Suffice it to say that Appellants' 
digressions are numerous and improper.  

 
 

[¶7]      Finally, this 
Court finds that this matter should be referred to the State Bar of New 
Mexico.  In the Brief of 
Appellant[s], Mr. Richard Gose informs this Court that he is still a member of 
the State Bar of New Mexico.  
According to this Court's research, Mr. Gose appears to be an inactive 
member of the State Bar of New Mexico.  
Due to Mr. Gose's conduct in being party to the filing of the Brief of 
Appellant[s], this Court finds that this matter should be referred to the State 
Bar of New Mexico, for whatever action it deems appropriate.  It is, therefore, 

 
 

[¶8]      ORDERED that the "Brief of 
Appellant[s]" be stricken and removed from this Court's file; and it is further 

 
 

[¶9]      ORDERED that the "Reply Brief of 
Appellant[s]" received by this Court, although timely, shall not be filed, 
because that brief includes similar disrespectful language and because such 
brief is not proper following the striking of the "Brief of Appellant[s]"; and 
it is further 

 
 

[¶10]   ORDERED 
that 
the District Court's May 28, 2009, "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion 
for Summary Judgment" be, and the same hereby is, affirmed; and it is further 

 
 

[¶11]   ORDERED 
that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit to the State Bar of New Mexico a 
copy of this "Order of Summary Affirmance" as well as copies of the "Brief of 
Appellant[s]" and the "Reply Brief of Appellant[s]," for whatever action that 
State Bar finds appropriate.

 
 

DATED 
this 30th day of October, 2009.

 
 
                        
                                                
BY THE COURT:

 
 
                                                                        
/s/ Barton R. Voigt                                        

                                                                        
BARTON R. VOIGT

                                                                        
Chief 
Justice