Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01911/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01911-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

JACK E. FLEMING, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

MAR O 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant , ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

DOUGLAS E. ANDERSON, ) 

No. 88-1911 

(D.C. No. 88-C-488) 

(D. Colo.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Ciicuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1911 Document: 010110024505 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 1 
.1 

Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983 

against a state court judge, alleging defendant entered an order 

in a state court action in violation of plaintiff's constitutional 

rights. In his federal complaint, plaintiff asserted five§ 1983 

claims for relief, alleging defendant's denial of plaintiff's 

state court motion for relief from judgment, made pursuant to 

Colo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), violated plaintiff's right to due 

process; violated plaintiff's first amendment right of access to 

the courts; amounted to gross negligence; denied plaintiff equal 

protection of the laws; and amounted to an abuse of judicial 

process. As relief, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive 

relief and damages. 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 

awarded defendant attorney's fees. Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which was denied. Plaintiff appeals the 

dismissal of his claims. 

A federal district court does not have authority to review 

state court judgments where, as in this action, the relief sought 

is in the form of appellate review. Anderson v. Colorado, 793 

F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 

1431, 1436 (10th Cir. 1986); see District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). The district court 

properly dismissed plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1911 Document: 010110024505 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 2 
J 

Defendant moved for sanctions on appeal. Plaintiff has had 

an opportunity to respond to this request. 

Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on ••• litigants ••• in order to regulate 

their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter 

frivolous filings. See,~, Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 ... (1980); Link v. Wabash 

R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 ... (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 

99 U.S. (9 Otto) 607 ... (1878). In addition, 

Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 u.s.c. § 1912 provide that a 

court of appeals may award just damages and single or 

double costs if the court "determine[s] that an appeal 

is frivolous" or brought for purposes of delay. This 

court has imposed attorney's fees and double costs for 

the taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, 

~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, -:f64 

(10th Cir. 1980). 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1986); 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 893, 894-95 (10th Cir. 1986). 

In light of plaintiff's legally frivolous appeal, an award of 

damages and double costs is justified. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED, and the case is REMANDED to the 

district court to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded 

for taking a legally frivolous appeal. The district court may 

look to the principles that have evolved in the interpretation of 

Rule 11 in assessing the amount of the sanction awarded pursuant 

to Rule 38 and§ 1912. See Atkinson v. O'Neill, F.2d 

No. 88-1132, slip op. at 4-5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989); 

Mullen v. Household Bank-Federal Sav. Bank, F.2d 

No. 87-1335, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. filed Feb. 10, 1989). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1911 Document: 010110024505 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 3