Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02163/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02163-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

., 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

fiILED 

UcireJ Sr&rtt CDtuc of Appeals 

Tench Cirruir · 

MAY 16 1990 

NICHOLAS V. FLEMING, >&OBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

O.L. MCCOTTER; MICHAEL FRANCKE; WILLIAM RIORDAN; ) 

ALAN SHUMAN; DON HOOVER; ED SHINHOLSER; ELY ) 

FRESQUES; KEN WARNER; JERRY TAFOYA; GEORGE E. ) 

SULLIVAN; DARELD KERBY; DAN MORIARTY; PENNY ) 

THOMAS; JAN THOMAS; HELEN TAFOYA; PAUL MULLER; ) 

JIMMY AVILA; A.V. NAVOA; JOE GRIEGO; LEE LYBRAND; ) 

JOSE ROMERO; GILBERT CASTILLO; ROSS ORTIZ; SANTOS) 

QUINTANA; ERNEST SANCHEZ; MIKE MATHERLY; JUNE ) 

WHITE; JACK FOLEY; RICHARD JOHNSON; JAY IHRIG; ) 

HERB SPANGLER; DAN BOWLES; LINDA LEVY; LARRY ) 

MONTAGUE; JOHN NIZALOWSKY; HAROLD BYFORD; CRES ) 

BACA; KALVIN ZENO KIEHNE; PATRICK LOPEZ; ) 

EDUARDO LUCERO; ·ART FRESQUES; ERMA SEDILLO; ) 

ELOY MONDRAGON; DONALD DORSEY; PAUL OLIVER; CINDY) 

SHERIF; BETH SAVAGE; BILL HINDRICKS; TROY ) 

KNICKERSON; YOLANDA R. HERNANDEZ; J. MICHAEL ) 

NORWOOD; JOHN H. STURTEVANT; TIBO J. CHAVEZ; ) 

ROBERT J. BUDAGHER; WILLIAM T. MACPHERSON; PETER ) 

PIEROTTI; DIANNE CHYLON BUDAGHER-FLEMING; PATTY ) 

BADAGHER; GENE DICKENSON; STATE OF NEW MEXICO ) 

CORRECTIONS DEPT.; PROBATION & PAROLE DEPT. OF THE) 

CORRECTIONS DEPT.; UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ) 

CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM; UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO ) 

SCHOOL OF LAW; STATE OF NEW MEXICO THIRTEENTH ) 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUDGES; HONORABLE SANTIAGO ) 

CAMPOS; JESSE CASAUS; ROZIER E. SANCHEZ; BUTT, ) 

THORNTON & BAEHR, P.C.; KAREN C. KENNEDY; OFFICE ) 

OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT;) 

MARIA CALDWELL; CLIFFORD NOMBERG; ROBERT F. ) 

SQUAGLIA; JOYCE TERRASAS; ROBERT M. SCHWARTZ; ) 

STEVEN H. SCHIFF, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

) 

) 

No. 89-2163 

(D.C. No. 

89-0392-JB) 

(D. N.M.) 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 1 
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(1); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Nicholas V. Fleming, a state prisoner, appeals pro se the 

dismissal of his amended complaint. Attempting to allege ninetyone claims including various conspiracies in violation of the RICO 

statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1915 and 1961 et 

seq., he filed a civil action in the United States District Court 

for the District of New Mexico. Mr. Fleming named seventy-six 

defendants, including state and federal judges, the University of 

New Mexico Law School, prosecutors, various court clerks, 

attorneys, students, numerous prison and parole officials and 

employees, and a United States congressman. The district court 

dismissed the amended complaint. We affirm. 

Pursuant to Fed. 

judicial notice "of 

R. Evid. 

the Court 

201, the district 

files and records" 

court took 

(Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, June 8, 1989), and found that both the original 

and the amended complaints were frivolous and malicious. 

Measuring the amended complaint against Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519 (1972), the district court stated the amended complaint was 

frivolous in that it was "completely devoid of any operative 

factual allegations that would show Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief and for that reason alone there does not appear a rational 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 2 
. ,,, 

argument on the law or facts which would entitle the Plaintiff to 

any relief." (Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6-8-89.) Citing 

Ballentine v. Crawford, 563 F.Supp. 627 (N.D. Ind. 1983), the 

district court further found the complaint abusive of the judicial 

powers and therefore malicious. "The complaint in this case 

reasserts alleged illegal or wrongful conduct ... already raised 

in previous or pending litigation." (Memorandum and Order, June 

8, 1989.) Although we do not fully agree with the district 

court's reasoning, we hold that the court properly dismissed the 

action, and affirm the order of the district court. 

On appeal, Mr. Fleming asserts: (1) "[a] complaint filed in 

forma pauperis is not automatically frivolous within the meaning 

of§ 1915(d)"; (2) "[t]he District Court Judge does not have 

jurisdiction over 

"[t]he Original 

other cases that are not assigne<;i to him"; 

Complaint should have been served"; 

( 3) 

( 4 ) 

"[i]mproper sanctions;" (5) "Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant is 

being punished for doing what the law plainly allows him to do;" 

and (6) "[T]he district court does not have jurisdiction to change 

or interpret what Congress has written." (Appellant's Brief at 

5. ) 

Mr. Fleming's first argument is without basis in the record. 

Nothing suggests that the trial judge dismissed Mr. Fleming's 

action because he proceeded in forma pauperis. We have reviewed 

Mr. Fleming's third, fourth, fifth, and sixth arguments and have 

determined that they are without merit as well. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 3 
Mr. Fleming also asserts the district court denied him the 

opportunity to be heard under Fed. R. Evid. 20l(e), which 

provides: 

A party is entitled upon timely request to an 

opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking 

judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. In 

the absence of prior notification, the request may be 

made after judicial notice has been taken. 

Fed. R. Evid. 20l(e). In his brief, Mr. Fleming asserts "[w]hen 

the Court took Judicial Notice under Fed. R. of Evid. 201 the 

Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant requested to be heard under Fed. R. 

of Evid. 20l(e) and to this date the court has not heard the 

Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant, again this court has denied the 

Plaintiff/Petitioner-Appellant his rights that [are] due him." 

(Appellant's Brief at 6.) 

We agree with Mr. Fleming that under Fed. R. Evid. 20l(e), he 

is entitled to be heard "as to the propriety of taking judicial 

notice and the tenor of the matter noticed." The court based its 

finding that the complaint is malicious on matters of which it 

took judicial notice. Assuming the district court did not afford 

Mr. Fleming the opportunity to be heard under Fed. R. Evid. 

20l(e), we set aside the finding that the complaint was malicious. 

We do not, however, vacate the judgment. Even without the finding 

that the complaint was malicious, the court properly dismissed the 

complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C § 1915(d). See Bennett v. 

Passic, 545 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1976). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 4 
Citing Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir. 1986), the 

district court then sought to "carefully tailor restrictions that 

will restrain future abusive litigation." (Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, June 8, 1989.) In so doing, the court stated: 

Plaintiff will be required to pay all the filing 

fees in full on all pending litigation in this District 

within fifteen days of the date of this Order or all 

pending litigation will be dismissed with prejudice 

automatically. Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342 (10th 

Cir. 1989). 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 8, 1989. 

Mr. Fleming loosely argues the district court erred in ruling 

on litigation which he claims was pending before a different 

judge. "[t]he District Court Judge does not have jurisdiction 

over other cases that are not assigned to him." (Appellant's 

Brief at 3.) We have considered this issue and conclude we lack 

jurisdiction to review this ruling as it pertains to the "other 

cases." The "other cases" are not identified or contained in the 

record on appeal. To our knowledge, the district court did not 

dismiss the cases, if any. Comment in the case now before the 

court does not constitute dismissal in the unidentified cases. 

Thus, the record before us on this issue is inadequate and we 

cannot consider Mr. Fleming's argument on this ·issue. 

Further, this portion of the court's order presupposes the 

existence of past abuses by Mr. Fleming as a result of his filing 

the instant suit which the district court found malicious. We 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 5 
have set this finding aside due to the fact that the district 

court denied Mr. Fleming the opportunity to be heard concerning 

the court taking judicial notice of its own records. 

There is no doubt that a court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and prevent abuses of its process. Moreover, a 

court has an obligation to curb an in forma pauperis litigator who 

has demonstrated a willingness to bring frivolous actions. See In 

Re McDonald, 109 s.ct. 993, 996, (1989) ("A part of the Court's 

responsibility is to see that [the institution's limited] 

resources are allocated in a way that promotes the interests of 

justice."); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352, 353 (10th Cir. 

1989) ("[The] district court has power ... to enjoin litigants who 

abuse the court system by harassing their opponents .. . . [T]here 

is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an 

action that is frivolous or malicious."); Procup v. Strickland, 

792 F.2d 1069, 1070, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) ("[T]he district court 

has authority to impose serious restrictions on [a pro se 

litigant's] bringing matters before the court without an 

attorney .... Federal courts have both the inherent power and the 

constitutional obligation to protect their jurisdiction from 

conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III 

functions." (Citation omitted.)) 

The fact that we set aside the district court's finding 

concerning the maliciousness of this suit alters nothing more than 

the history behind this suit. Before us are the complaint and the 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 6 
-

amended complaint, both of which are blatantly frivolous. Both 

pleadings lack significant factual allegations. The pleadings 

charge seventy-five defendants and "diverse other persons whose 

names are unknown" with defrauding Mr. Fleming of "approximately 

$228 million dollars." Further, the certificate of service 

attached to the amended complaint shows that Mr. Fleming served a 

request for production followed by a motion to compel. The record 

reveals that Mr. Fleming paid neither filing fee nor costs. In 

our view, the continual processing of frivolous documents fails to 

promote the just allocation of the district court's limited 

resources. We therefore hold, based solely upon Mr. Fleming's 

filings in this action, that the record on appeal reveals an 

adequate basis for the district court to carefully tailor curbs on 

this prose litigator. 

The district court ordered Mr. Fleming to supply "a complete 

list of any litigation filed in any court setting out in full the 

name of the Plaintiff, all Defendants, the name of the Court and 

the case number, the date of filing, the date of disposition and 

the nature of the disposition." The district court also ordered 

that all federal pleadings must be fully certified in accordance 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. We cannot say these restriction are 

improper under the facts of this case. 

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-2163 Document: 01019970170 Date Filed: 05/16/1990 Page: 7