Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01040/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01040-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

. ' ., 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

U!lited Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. Colorado ) 

Judicial Department; THE LAW FIRM OF ) 

HALL & EVANS; COOPER & KELLEY, P.C.; ) 

LAW, KNOUS & KEITHLEY; SUSEMIHIL, ) 

LOHMAN, KENT, CARLSON & MCDERMOTT, P.C.; ) 

MONTGOMERY, LITTLE, YOUNG, CAMPBELL & ) 

MCGREW; HOUSTON & WOODHOUSE, P.C., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs/Appellees, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JACK E. FLEMING, ) 

) 

Defendant/Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT 10 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1040 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 88-F-1590) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 1 
• f ... 

. Jack E. Fleming _appeals from an amended judgment of the 

district court which restricted Fleming's abusive and frivolous 

pattern of litigation as a prose plaintiff, as follows: 

"ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Jack E. 

Fleming is ENJOINED from proceeding as a proponent of 

any claim in the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado without the representation of an 

attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado 

and admitted to practice in this court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all cases pending in the 

United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado in which Mr. Fleming is a plaintiff, and in 

which he does not employ counsel to represent him within 

thirty days, shall be subject to dismissal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court 

is directed not to accept any new pleadings initiating a 

civil action by Mr. Jack E. Fleming unless he is 

represented by an attorney licensed to practice in the 

State of Colorado and by the United States District 

Court for Colorado." 

Order, Jan. 18, 1989, J. Finesilver, at 7-8. 

The district court's order was entered on a complaint filed 

in the district court by the State of Colorado and others seeking 

protection from Fleming's unmeritorious and abusive pro se civil 

actions. Fleming counterclaimed in that action alleging a 

violation of his constitutional rights secured by 42 u.s.c. 

§§ 1983 and 1985. In its judgment the district court also granted 

the plaintiff's motion to dismiss Fleming's counterclaims. 

We attach and incorporate herein the district court's 

opinion, inclusive of its accompanying appendix. That opinion 

abundantly establishes Fleming's pattern of frivolous, abusive, 

and malicious litigation in which, among other abuses, he has 

misused the judicial system to harass and attempt to intimidate 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 2 
·~ 

public officials, attorneys, and other of his fellow citizens. 

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. 

Injunctions are proper where the litigant's abusive and lengthy 

history is properly set forth, as has been done in this case. 

Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989). See also 

Matter of Davis, 878 F.2d 211, 212 (7th Cir. 1989). 

We affirm the district court's conclusions that restrictions 

can and should be placed upon Fleming's pro se filings as a 

plaintiff in the district court. However, the restriction 

selected, i.e., that of prohibiting an appearance without a 

licensed attorney, is too broad. In this respect, we agree with 

the only other circuit which has considered a similar restriction. 

See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069 (11th Cir. 1986) (en 

bane). In Procup the Eleventh Circuit reasoned that if it upheld 

the requirement that no suit could be filed prose, the reputation 

of the individual in question, and his history of suing lawyers, 

"may well foreclose [the litigant] from filing any suits at all." 

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d at 1071. That reasoning applies in 

Fleming's case as well. 

We do not mean to imply that severe restrictions may not be 

placed upon Fleming with respect to his prose plaintiff 

only that the restrictions must be less broadly 

filings, 

tailored. 

Examples of such restrictions are contained in Tripati v. Beaman, 

and Matter of Davis, cited above. Obviously, there are others 

available as well. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 3 
T 

In-~iew of- our affirmance of -the district court's conclusion 

that the plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief against 

Fleming, we also affirm the district court's dismissal of 

Fleming's counterclaims. 1 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

1 In his brief 

court disqualify 

that request as a 

denied. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Fleming requests that various judges of this 

themselves from hearing this matter. Construing 

motion directed to the panel, the motion is 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 4 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

case No. aa-F-1590 

STATE OF COLORADO ex rel. Colorado Judicial Department; IiALL AND 

EVANS; COOPER AND KELLEY, P,C,: LAW, KNOUS AND KEITHLEY; SUSEMIHL, 

LOHMAN, KENT, CARLSON, AND McDERMOTT, P. C. ; MONTGOMERY, LITTLE 

YOUNG, CAMPBELL ANO McGREW; and HUS~ON AND WOODHOUSE, P.c., 

Plaintif!s, 

vs. 

JACK E. FLEMING, 

Defendant. 

OROER 

Shetrnan G. Finesilver, chief Judga 

ffU!D 

lJNtl'?O $fATf5 OliTlttCf COIJR'\' 

OfNVe~. COLO!fADO 

JAMe:5 R. MANSPfAKeR 

CL.eRK 

This matter comes ~efore the court on trial to the court of 

plaintiff's claims, and plaintiffs' motion to dismiss defendant's 

counterclaims. Plaintiffs seek an injunction against defendant's 

filing of tu.:.Q a lawsuits, and defendant has filed a counterclaim 

alleging civil rights violations. Jurisdiction is based on this 

court's authority to control abusive litigation befo~e it. In re 

Martin-Trigon~, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d cir. 1984); Pegple of the state 

pf Cglorado y. cai;:ter, 678 F.Supp. 1484, 1486 (D. Colo. 1986); 

Turner v, American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451 (N.o. Tex. 

1975), The court has carefully considered all of the evidence 

presented, the testimony of the witnesses, and the applicable law. 

The following constitutes the court's findings of tact and 

conclusions of law, as supplemented by the findings stated from the 

bGnch at the close of the evidence at the trial on .January 5, 1989. 

For the reasons stated below, judgment is entered in favor of 

l 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 5 
.. 

plaintiffs and against de!endant on their claims, and defendant's 

counterclaims are dismissed. 

Al though there is a constitutional right to access to the 

courts, there is "no constitutional right of access to the courts 

to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious.'' Philli~s 

v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, .208 (10th cir. 1981). In order to protect 

the rights of other litigants to access to the courts, and to 

protect defendants from harassing, abusive, and meritless 

litigation, courts have authority to place reasonable restrictions 

on litigants who abuse th~ judicial process. Phillips v. CateY, 

638 F.2d 201, 209 (10th cir. 1981); Theriault v, silbe.r, 574 r.2d 

191 (5th cir. 1978); People o, the state or Colorado y, carte~, 678 

F.Supp. 1484, 1486 (D. Colo. 1986). 

The court finds that enjoining Mr. Fleming from proceeding as 

a~ ll plaintiff in this district is a reasonable restriction, 

warranted by his abuse at the legal process. Mr. Fleming filed 

six cases in Federal court in this district in two years. Those 

cases are summarized in Appendix A to this order. Appandix A also 

lists Colorado state court actions tiled by Mr. Flaming. 

Mr. Fleming has filed duplicative causes of action which are 

frivolous, vexatious, and without legal merit. For example, after 

Mr. Fleming did not prevail in an action stemming from the 

dissolution of a partnership agreement, he tiled a second cause of 

action arising out of the same partnarship agreement. Fleming v, 

Seeger, escv1as4 (El Paso Oistrict court). After sWN;1ary judgment 

was entered against him in that action, he tiled a third action 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 6 
against his opponent's attorneys . .[J,eming v. Kent, 85CV4299-9 (El 

Paso District Court). He also filed a grievance against his 

opponent's attorney with the Colorado Supreme Court. When that 

grievance was dismissed, he filed an action in federal court to 

review the decision of the Colorado Supreme court. Fleming Y. 

Oμion, 86-F-1923. His action was dismissed, and the dismissal was 

affirmed on appeal. Fleming y. ouion, 87-1559 (10th cir. slip op., 

November 2, 1987). Meanwhile, after Mr. Fleming•s third state 

court action was dismissed, he filed another action, this time in 

federal court, against his former opponent, the presiding judge, 

his opponents' attorneys, and his opponents' insurer. Fleming v. 

canngn, 87-M-2011. The case was dismissed, Another federal action 

was filed against a state judge who refused to grant Mr. Fleming's 

motion tor relief from judgment in the third state court action. 

[leming v. Anderson, aa-C-488. That case was dismissed, and fees 

were assessed against Mr. Fleming. 

Similarly, after Mr. Fleming had summa.ry judgment enterec:i 

against him in a legal malpractice action, Fleming y. Kofoed, 

85CVl0062-1 (Denver District Court), and fees were assessed against 

him, Mr. Fleming brought suit against the presiding judge, his 

termer opponents, and his opponent Is insurer, in federal court. 

Fleming v, Rothepburg, as-F-490. That action was dismissed. · Mr. 

Fleming brought tha same malpractice claims again in state court. 

Fleming v, Visoian2, B6CV4339-9. summary judgment was granted 

against Mr. Fleming, and fees were assessed against him. Again, 

Mr. Fleming sought review of that decision in federal court by 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 7 
suing the presiding judges, his opponents, his opponents' 

attorneys, and his opponents' insurer. Fleming v. Martin, 88-F489 . This case was dismissed. 

finally, Mr. Fleming had summary judgment entered against him 

in an action on a promissory note. Mr. Fleming sought review of 

that decision in !ederal court by bringing suit against the 

presiding judges, his opponents, and his opponent's attorneys. 88-

C-487. That case was dismissed, and fees were assessed against Mr, 

Fleming. 

Mr. Fleming has refused to follow standard methods of appeal. 

After the earliest of Mr. Fleming• s losses in state court, ha 

correctly sought review in the Colorado Court of Appeals, and the 

Colorado Supreme court. Mr. Fleming has testified before this 

court, however, that he now does not ~elieve that the Colorado 

court of Appeals is interested in his problems, and that he 

believes that the state courts are not obligated to protiact his 

rights under the Federal constitution. Hence, he decided that he 

would no longer appeal adverse rulings to the Colorado Court of 

Appeals, but rather would bring suit against the state judges and 

his opponents' attorneys in federai court. 

Mr. Fleming has been informed repeatedly, both by the United 

States District court, and the Tenth Circuit court of Appeals, that 

federal courts have no jurisdiction to review the decisions of 

state judicial officers. Th• Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' 

decision on the first of Mr, Fleming's cases is att~ched to this 

order as Appendix B, Clearly, Mr. Fleming has not responded to the 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 8 
courts' orders, since all of his federal cases are attempts to 

~eview the judgments of state courts. 

Mr. Fleming has shown a lack of regard for court procedures 

and rules. As stated above, Mr. Fleming has bean repeatedly 

assessed attorneys' fees in his 12.J.:Q. ~ actions. In his second 

state court action arising out of his claims of legal malpractice, 

Mr. Fleming was jailed for three days !or contQmpt of court for 

refusal to co-operate in the court's order of Rule 69 examinations. 

Mr. Fleming's multiple filings also show a lack of regard tor the 

court's resources and the rights ot other litigants to access to 

the court. 

Although Mr. Fleming's initial state court lawsuits may have 

been based on his good faith belief of legal right to reeover:y, his 

later litigation evinces his willingness to file actions for 

vexatious and harassing purposes, with total disregard for the 

legal merits of the action, Mr, Fleming has been informed by court 

attar court that he cannot bring suits against attorneys or judges 

to review decisions adverse to him, but he has continued to do so, 

His correspondence \t/ith his opponents reveals that he brings his 

lawsuits because he believes that fear of pending litigation will 

give him leverage in his disputes. For example, one letter to 

attorney Frank Visciano dated February 11, 1986 demanded a 

settlement of pending lawsuits, and speculated that if a claim were 

filed against him, Mr. Visciano•s professional liability insurance 

rates would skyrocket. The letter also pointed out that defending 

the suit would be expensive. and time consuming, Finally, the 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 9 
·letter reminded Mr. Visciano that Mr. Fleming did not have to 

operate under the Code or Professional Responsibility. Plaintiffs' 

Exhibit 9. A letter to attorney Kim Childs dated April 27, 1988 

threatened to file an additional suit against Mr. Childs, and suits 

against judges which would duplicate previous suits. The letter 

pointed out that Mr. Childs would be the only attorn~y in the 

country with three civil rights suits pending against him, and that 

two civil rights suits would be pending against his clients. 

Plaintiffs' exhibit 13. In a letter to attorney William Huston 

dated June 29, 1988, Mr. ~leming demanded that a judgment against 

him be voided and money returned, and threatened that future 

lawsuits would be filed against Mr. Huston, his clients, and the 

judges if Mr. Fleming's demands were not mat. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 

17. Mr. Fleming testified before this court that he does not 

retain attorneys to represent him in his lawsuits because he finds 

the prohibitive cost of attorneys inhibits his access to the 

courts. Mr. Fleming does not seem to be concerned with the tact 

those he brings suits against are thereby forced to incur l~gal 

fees. 

Finally, Mr, Flem_ing has misled the courts before which he has 

appeared. In his legal malpractice case, Mr. Fleming retained an 

expert to render an opinion as to the performance ot Mr. Fleming's 

former attorneys. In his deposition, however, Mr. Fleming's expert 

stated that his opinions were based on inaccurate information given 

· to him by Mr. Fleming. In another case, Fltmiog v. Seeger, 

86CV22J7-3 (El Paso District court), Mr. Fleming attempted to 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 10 
collect on a note from his former partner, despite the tact that 

the note had already been paid by the former partner in previous 

litigation. 13nk of the Rockies y. Fleming; 88CVl985-6 {El Paso 

District Court). 

The court finds that remedies at law have proven ineffective 

in preventing Mr. Fleming 1 s abuse of the lGgal process. Rule 11 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 u.s.c. section 1927 

both provide courts with power to sanction abusive ~ ~ 

litigants. However, repeated sanctions against Mr. Fleming, and 

even incarceration for civil contempt, have proven ineffective in - . . 

deterring Mr. Fleming's pattern of litigation. Mr. Fleming I s 

financial situation prevents monetary . sanctions from being 

effective. Indeed; in responding to a motion for sanctions in this 

case, Mr. Fleming argued, through his attorney, that sanctions 

should not be imposed against him because he is unemployed. 

Plaintiffs move to dism~sa defendant's counterclaim. This 

court has found that an injunction against defendant's filing of 

prose litigation is appropriate, and does not violate defendant's 

constitutional rights. 

dismissed. 

The oounterclaim should therefore be 

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that Mr. Jack E. Fleming is 

ENJOINED trom proceeding as a proponent ot any claim in the United 

States District court tor tha District of Colorado without the 

representation of an attorney licensed to practice in the State of 

Colorado and admitted to practice in this court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all cases pending in the United 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 11 
' . 

. States District court for the District of Colorado in which Mr. 

Fleming is a plaintiff, and in which he does not employ counsel to 

represent him within thirty days, shall be subject to dismissal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the court is directed 

not to accept any new pleadings initiating a civil action by Mr, 

Jack E. Fleming unless he is represented by an attorney licensed 

to practice in the state of Colorado and by the United States 

District Court for Colorado. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed 

to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant on 

plaintiff's claims. Eaeh party to pay its own costs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's counterclaims are 

dismissed. 

Done this 

By the court: 

- day ot January, 1989 at Denver, Colorado. 

/"' ~~~·Z~ 4. ·1·~~"-<,,Ct.,~ 

Sherman G, Finesilver, Chief Judge United States District court 

8 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 12 
APPENDIX A 

SUMMARY OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ACTION INITIATED IN THIS 

DISTRICT BY JACK E. FLEMING 

A. Fleming v. oui~n. et al. (86-F-1923). 

An action commenced on March 30, 1986 by Fleming to challenge 

the Colorado Supreme Court's dismissal of a grievance filed by 

Fleming against an attorney. Flaming contencied the dismissal of 

the grievance was a denial of his constitμtional right to due 

process of law. Defendants were the Chief Justice of the Colorado 

Supreme Court, and the committee counsel and investigator for the 

Colorado attorney grievance committee, 

1. Trial Court 

Action dismissed on March 27, 1987. Tha court's order stated 

that Federal courts will not review judgments ot state courts, ~nd 

that state judicial Qfficers have immunity from suits for damages. 

2. court of Appeals 

Dismissal affirmed on November 2, 1987. The Tenth Circuit 

Court ot Appeals stated that plaintiff's challenge to an adverse 

decision by the Colorado supreme Court and grievance committee .did 

not fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal 

eourts. 

B. Fleming v. canngn. et al, (86-M-2011). 

suit by Fleming commenced on September 27, 1986, challenging 

the judgment of a state court against him in a legal malpractice 

action. Fleming claimed the judgment against him violated his 

constitutional rights, Defendants were the state court judge, an 

attorney and law firm which appeared against Fleming, and his 

.. 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 13 
.. 

·opponent's insurer. 

1. Trial Court 

Complaint dismissed without prejudice on December 17, 1986. 

The court's opinion stated that the Federal court would not review 

judgments of state courts pending on appeal within the state 

courts. 

2. Court o! Appeals 

Appeal pending. 

c. Fleming v. Rl}odes, ,et al. (aa-c-487). 

suit by Jack and carqlyn Fleming commenced on March JO, 1988 

challenging the judgment of a state court against them in an action 

collecting on a promissory note. The Flemings claimed the judgment 

against them deprived him ot his constitutional rights to freedom 

of speech and access to the courts. The complaint also alleged a 

conspiracy between the defendants to violate the Flemings' rights 

and gross negligence. Defendants were two state court judges, two 

attorneys and a law firm which appeared against the Flemings, and 

their opponent in the state court suit. 

1. Trial Court 

Complaint dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing of a 

frivolous complaint on May 10, 1988. The court I s order stated that 

federal courts have no authority to review final ·judgments of state 

courts. 

2. court of App•als 

Appeal pending. 

o. Fl~ming y. Anderson (88-C-488). 

Suit commenced on Ma~ch JO, 1988 by Fleming challenging the 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 14 
' L 

judgment of a state court against him in a legal malpractice 

lawsuit. Fleming contended the judgment violated his 

constitutional rights. Defendant was the state court judge. 

1. '!'rial cou:rt 

complaint dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a 

frivolous complaint on May 10, 1988. The court's order stated that 

' federal courts have no authority to rQview final judgments of state 

courts. 

2. court ot Appeals 

Appeal pending, 

E. lleming v. Mortin. et Al. (sa-F-489). 

An action commenced by Fleming on March 30, 1988 to ·challenge 

the validity a judgment against him in a state court legal 

malpractice action, Fleming contended the judgment violated his 

constitutional rights. Defendants were three state court judges, 

three attorneys and a law firm who represented Fleming's opponents, 

and his opponents• insurer. 

1. Trial court 

Action dismissed on May 19, 1988. The court's order stated 

that federal eourts have no jurisdiction to review state court 

rulings. 

2. court of Appeals 

Appeal pending. 

F. V.eming y, Rothenberg. et al, (ss-F-490). 

An action commenced by Fleming on March 30, 1988 to challenge 

a judgment against him in another state court legal malpractice 

action. Again, defendants were the state court judge, three 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 15 
• • 

attorneys and a law firm who appeared against Fleming, and his 

opponent•s insurer. 

1. Trial court 

Action dismissed on May 1°9, 1988. The court's order stated 

that federal courts have no jurisdiction to review state court 

rulings. 

2. Court of Appeals 

Appeal pending. 

CASES INITIATED BY JACK E. FLEMING IN 

COLORADO STATE COURT 

Fleming v, seeg~r, 84CV1614-5 (El Paso District court) 

Fleming Y, Seeger, 85CV1884 (El Paso District court) 

Fleming v. Kent 1 85CV4299-9 (~l Paso District court) 

Fleming v, Kofoed. 85CV10062-l (Denver District court) 

Fleming v. Seeger, B6CV2237-3 (El Paso District Court) 

Fleming v, Vis9ianQ, 86CV4339-9 (Denver District court) 

Appellate Case: 89-1040 Document: 01019974313 Date Filed: 10/10/1989 Page: 16