Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-03-04219/USCOURTS-ca10-03-04219-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

June 8, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DONALD JOHNSON; MERRIE 

LING; JAYE GORDON, 

Plaintiffs, 

and 

HOLLI LUNDAHL; KASSI 

LUNDAHL; KELLI LUNDAHL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

NANCY WEIBEN STOCK; EMPIRE 

OF AMERICA; CALIFORNIA 

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD; 

MARCH FONG EU, Secretary of 

State; GERALD, Commissioner, in 

his personal capacity; LORRAINE 

ALTHEA WELLS; EVE CHAPLIN; 

PA TRICIA DEVLIN, in her personal 

capacity; ST ACEE NELSON, in her 

personal capacity; LOS ANGELES 

COUNTY; AETNA CASUALTY 

AND SURETY COMPANY; 

CALIFORNIA IRONWORKERS 

HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN; 

PATRICIA RICH, in her personal 

capacity; THOMPSON AND 

COLGATE; RAY BICKNELL, in his 

personal capacity; CHA BIC, CORP.; 

THERESA MCDEVITT, in her 

personal capacity, 

Defendants, 

No. 03-4219 

(D.C. No. 2:97-CV-951-TS) 

(D. Utah) 

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 1
and 

SOURCE ONE MORTGAGE 

SERVICE; LORI PIVO; 

CONTINENT AL ASSURANCE 

COMP ANY, also known as CNA 

Insurance, Inc.; STEPHEN 

CUNNISON, Honorable; VICTOR 

MICELLI; COUNTY OF 

RIVERSIDE; KENT LIVINGSTON, 

in his personal capacity; UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA; GENERAL 

SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION/FEDERAL 

PROTECTIVE SERVICE; 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; 

HAROLD GRIMES; FRED 

TILLMAN; GEORGE SANTOS; 

JESSE GONZALES, also known as 

Jesse Lemeli; CHRISTINA 

JOHNSON; EARL ESTRADA; 

GREG ESTES; ANNE TRAN; 

DAREN LEON; GEORGE YEE; 

WILLIAM SMITH; STEVEN 

LINICK; JACK WEISS; BUREAU 

OF PRISONS; W. LESTER also 

known as W. VOGEL; R. 

BUSTAMANTE; S. DOBBS; JUDGE 

ROBERT J. TIMLIN; MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE BRIAN ROBBINS; JUDGE 

LORDES G. BAIRD; CATHY 

CATERSON; JERI CURTIS; 

GABRIELLA DOE. also known as 

Gabriella Van Allen; PETER SHAW; 

PROFESSIONAL RISK 

MANAGEMENT; POTTS, Officer; 

CORBETT, Officer; HAMIL TON, 

Sergeant; FULLERTON POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; PRUDENTIAL 

ASSET MANAGEMENT 

-2-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 2
COMPANY, INC.; ROY ALE 

HEALTH CARE;; BARNEY 

UNGERMANN AND ASSOCIATES; 

ANGELASABERI;ROXANNE 

TAKEUCHI; ELI LILLY & CO., 

INC; MORRIS, POLICH & PURDY; 

CONNIE ELLIANO; MOONRAKER 

APARTMENTS; VERIZON 

CALIFORNIA INC., formerly known 

as GTE; CAROL HUMISTON; CITY 

OF GARDEN GROVE; 

MURTAUGH, MILLER, MEYER 

AND NELSON; TRAVELERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY; 

ADV AN CED CARDIOVASCULAR 

SYSTEMS, 

Defendants-Appel lees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, KELLY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. 

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.l(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. 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. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 3
Plaintiffs filed this action in the District of Utah against dozens of federal, 

state, and private defendants, alleging causes of action ranging from civil rights 

claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to antitrust violations to state law tort 

claims. They appeal from interlocutory orders dismissing certain defendants 

named in their 171-page first amended complaint, and from the district court's 

ultimate order dismissing their action for failure to prosecute. We affirm the 

dismissals, deny all pending appellate motions, enter proposed filing restrictions 

against plaintiffs, and vacate as moot our previously-issued order to show cause 

concerning alleged fraud upon the court. 

MERITS OF APPEAL 

Plaintiffs raise the following issues on appeal: 

1. Federal District Judge Tena Campbell was mandatorily disqualified from 

sitting on this case, and therefore all orders she entered were void as a matter of 

law. 

2. Plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), tax injunction and Quiet 

Title Act claims against the United States should not have been dismissed for 

failure to comply with administrative filing requirements. 

3. Individual federal defendants named in the action should not have been 

dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 4
4. The district court should not have dismissed defendants on the basis of 

res judicata. 

5. The district court should not have dismissed defendants on the basis of 

statute of limitations. 

6. The district court should not have dismissed defendants for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. 

7. The district court should not have dismissed claims against Eli Lilly & 

Company, Inc., for improper venue. 

8. The district court should not have dismissed plaintiffs' Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA) claims against the State of California. 

9. The district court erred in entering certain rulings while the case was 

subject to an automatic stay created due to Holli Lundahl's bankruptcy. 

I 0. Clerks of court committed Westfall Act violations by failing to enter 

default judgments against certain defendants. 

Having reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the 

applicable law in light of the pertinent standards of review, this court affirms the 

challenged orders of the district court and the dismissal of this case, for 

substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 5
PENDING MOTIONS 

An extraordinary number of motions have been filed in this appeal. The 

internal docket for the appeal contains over 350 entries, a quantity highly unusual 

in appellate litigation. Motions pending on this court's docket include motions to 

strike, motions for permission to file over-length briefs, motions to supplement 

the record, motions to dismiss the appeal, and motions to impose filing 

restrictions and/or sanctions. Many of these motions include voluminous 

appendices, affidavits and accompanying memoranda. Upon consideration, we 

have determined that none of the motions affect the disposition of this appeal and 

that each of these motions should be denied. Therefore, all pending motions are 

denied. 

FILING RESTRICTIONS 

Federal courts have the inherent power 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). 

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 3 53-54. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 6
1. Lengthy and abusive filing history 

Plaintiffs (hereafter meaning those plaintiffs in the district court who are 

named as appellants in this appeal), and in particular plaintiff Holli Lundahl, have 

a lengthy and abusive history of filing frivolous, prolix and vexatious actions and 

pleadings, both in this court and in other state and federal courts. Ms. Lundahl's 

litigation tactics, in which the other plaintiffs have participated in this case, have 

not escaped notice by the courts before which she has appeared. The Utah 

Supreme Court, for example, noted that in approximately four years, Ms. Lundahl 

filed nineteen appeals, four writ petitions, two petitions for certiorari, and two 

petitions for interlocutory appeal before that court. Lundahl v. Quinn, 67 P.3d 

1000, 1001 (Utah 2003 ). That court opined that her filings were "routinely 

frivolous" and "brought with the apparent purpose, or at least effect, of 

harassment, not only of opposing parties, but of the judicial machinery itself." Id. 

at 1002. Noting Ms. Lundahl's "history of consuming judicial resources without 

demonstrating adequate legal justification," id. at 1005, the Utah Supreme Court 

imposed restrictions on her future filings, including making future fee waivers 

conditional upon compliance with that state's rules of appellate procedure. 

The Ninth Circuit has also imposed pre-filing restrictions on Ms. Lundahl, 

In re Lundahl, No. 97-80258 (9th Cir. Jul. 17, 1997) ( order imposing pre-filling 

review), as has the United States District Court for the District of Utah, see In re 

-7-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 7
Lundahl (D. Utah July 8, 2004) (general order imposing filing restrictions), and 

the United States Supreme Court, see Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 73 USL W 3631, 

2005 WL 461288 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2005). In her most recent maneuver, 

Ms. Lundahl sought to "remove" cases filed in California and Utah to the district 

of Idaho; that court not only resisted her attempt at forum-shopping, it also denied 

her leave to proceed in forma pauperis, finding that she is a vexatious litigant. 

See Los Angeles Home-Owners Aid Inc. v. Lundahl, No. Civ. 05-126-E-BL-W, 

2005 WL 1140649, at *3-*4 (D. Idaho May 13, 2005). 

This court has previously dismissed a number of appeals filed by Lundahl 

as frivolous or meritless. Lundahl v. Levvis, Nos. 04-4038, 04-4039, 2005 WL 

984400, at * 1 (10th Cir. Apr. 28, 2005) ( denying IFP "[b ]ecause we deem these 

matters frivolous" and dismissing appeals); Lundahl v. Robbins, No. 04-4236, 

2005 WL 984486 (10th Cir. Apr. 28, 2005) ( denying IFP and dismissing appeal); 

Lundahl v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. 04-4243, 2005 WL 984490, at * 1 (10th 

Cir. Apr. 28, 2005) (same; noting that "Iv1s. Lundahl's arguments border on 

specious'· and that her "pattern of vexatious litigation may warrant the imposition 

of sanctions or other restrictions"). 

In the present action, Lundahl filed a complaint substantially similar to one 

pending in the California federal courts. She also filed a separate action in Utah 

for relief from the California judgments under Rule 60(b ), Lundahl v. Compton, 

-8-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 8
No. 99-CV-l 5 (D. Utah), in which she attempted to create a colorable basis for 

jurisdiction over California defendants by advancing the frivolous argument that 

the defendants were agents or instrumentalities of a "foreign" state (i.e., 

California) within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 1602(b), and the Torture Victim Protection Act, id. § 1350. She also 

filed a third action for Rule 60(b) relief in Utah, later consolidated with this case, 

containing similar claims and assertions. Lundahl v. United States, No. 98-CV639 (D. Utah). The costs of this duplicative litigation, often pursued in forma 

pauperis by plaintiffs, have been enormous. 2 

Additionally, Lundahl' s complaint in the present action, along with her 

parallel complaints in the Utah district court, are replete with fanciful, 

implausible and bizarre factual assertions. Her legal claims, including antitrust 

claims, are virtually all meritless. If there is a viable argument lurking within one 

of the claims, it is obscured by Ms. Lundahl' s abusive litigation practices. 

Lundahl has named opposing attorneys, judges, court clerks, and other 

court personnel as defendants, accusing them of joining in a massive conspiracy 

against her. In this court, she has requested, among other things, that oral 

2 Defendants Eli Lilly and Company, Inc. and Advanced Cardiovascular 

Systems, Inc. have informed this court in a signed pleading that their legal costs 

alone to date in defending against Ms. Lundahl's claims exceed one million 

dollars. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 9
argument be conducted on all pending motions and that a me:dia consultant be 

present to videotape such oral arguments for purposes of broadcast. Her 

vexatious litigiousness has resulted in an immense waste of judicial resources. 

"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) (quotation omitted). 

2. Filing restrictions to be imposed 

Because plaintiffs, and in particular plaintiff Holli Lundahl, have abused 

the appellate process, we impose the following reasonable filing restrictions upon 

them, see id. at 315-16, subject to their opportunity to file written objections as 

we outline below. 3 If the written objections are overruled, plaintiffs or any of 

them, individually or collectively, will be ENJOINED from proceeding as 

petitioners in an original proceeding or as appellants in this court unless they are 

3 Although plaintiffs other than Ms. Lundahl were apparently not personally 

involved in many of the previous actions in which filing restrictions were 

imposed against Ms. Lundahl, we cannot exclude them from the present order 

because to do so would create a large loophole for continued abuse of the courts 

through surrogate litigation by Ms. Lundahl. Ms. Lundahl has used these 

plaintiffs to engage in her practice of frivolous litigation. To the extent that these 

plaintiffs may have legitimate claims separate and apart from those of 

Ms. Lundahl that they wish to pursue in this court, the guidelines we announce for 

future filings will permit the clerk of this court as gatekeeper to permit such 

actions to go forward. Moreover, plaintiffs are to be given notice of this order 

and an opportunity to respond to it. 

-10-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 10
represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court or unless they 

first obtain permission to proceed pro se. To obtain permission to proceed prose, 

plaintiffs must take the following steps: 

1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file a pro se 

action; 

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 plaintiffs' access to federal court, including orders and injunctions 

requiring plaintiffs to seek leave to file matters pro se or requiring them 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 a notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, which 

n:l:itcs the issues they seek 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 plaintiffs' 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, 

-11-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 11
modification, or reversal of existing law, that the appeal or other proceeding is 

not interposed for any improper purpose such as delay or to needlessly increase 

the cost of litigation, and that they will comply with all appellate and local rules 

of this court. 

These documents shall be submitted to the clerk of the court, who shall 

forward them to the chief judge of this court. The chief judge or her designee 

shall review the documents to determine whether to permit the pro se appeal or 

other proceeding. Without the approval of the chief judge or her designee, the 

matter will be dismissed. If the chief judge or her designee approves the 

submission, an order will be entered indicating that the matter shall proceed in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit 

Rules. 

3. Opportunity to be heard 

Plaintiffs (meaning those plaintiffs in the district court who are named as 

appellants in this appeal) shall have ten days from the date of this order to file 

written objections, limited to fifteen pages, to these proposed sanctions. See 

Winslow, 17 F.3d at 316-17. If plaintiffs do not file objections, the sanctions 

shall take effect twenty days from the date of this order. Id. at 3 16-1 7. The filing 

restrictions shall apply to any matter filed after that time. If plaintiffs do file 

-12-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 12
timely objections, these sanctions shall not take effect until after this court has 

ruled on those objections. 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On November 9, 2004, this court entered an order to show cause why this 

appeal should not be dismissed for fraud upon the court. Plaintiffs filed multiple 

voluminous pleadings in response. While the panel remains unconvinced that the 

challenged documents plaintiffs submitted to this court are genuine and/or 

unaltered, the court concludes that judicial economy is best served by foregoing 

the appointment of a special master and/or the institution of extensive hearings on 

the fraud on the court issue at this time. Because affirmance is appropriate on the 

merits, and because the filing restrictions proposed in this order are designed to 

prevent further abuse of the litigation process in this court, the goals of deterring 

fraud on the court and vindicating the dignity of this court are adequately served 

by measures taken in this order. We therefore discharge the order to show cause 

as moot. 

-13-

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 13
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are 

DENIED. Plaintiffs (appellants in this appeal) are ENJOINED from further 

filings in accordance with the restrictions set out in this order and judgment, 

subject to their opportunity to respond to the proposed filing restrictions as stated 

herein. The order to show cause entered November 9, 2004 is DISCHARGED as 

moot. 

-14-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 03-4219 Document: 010110666425 Date Filed: 06/08/2005 Page: 14