Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01152/USCOURTS-ca10-04-01152-0/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 

APR 22 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

KAY SIEVERDING; DA YID 

SIEVERDING; ED SIEVERDING; 

TOM SIEVERDING, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION, 

and their insurance company (true 

name unknown); CITY OF 

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS, CO, a 

municipality; AMERICAN BAR 

ASSOCIATION, and their insurance 

company (true name unknown); 

JANE BENNETT, private citizen 

acting in conspiracy with City policy 

makers; KEVIN BENNETT, 

individually and in capacity as City 

council member; KEN BRENNER, 

individually and in capacity as a City 

council member; DA YID 

BROUGHAM, individually and in 

capacity as apparent City insurance 

agent (for CIRSA); CIRSA, insurance 

for the City; INSURANCE AGENT, 

other than Brougham, and decision 

makers for CI RSA ( true name 

unknown); KATHY CONNELL, 

individually and as employed as City 

council member; DAVIS, GRAHAM 

& STUBBS, LLC; JAMES 

ENGLEKEN, individually and in 

Nos. 04-1108, 04-1143, 04-1152 

(D.C. No. 02-N-1950 (OES)) 

(D. Colo.) 

Appellate Case: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 1
capacity as City council member; 

ART FIEBING, individually and as 

employed as City assistant chief of 

police; SANDY FIEBING, 

individually and as the City code 

enforcement officer; DANIEL 

FOOTE, individually and in capacity 

as assistant City attorney; JAMES 

GARRECHT, in capacity as district 

court judge (for injunctive relief only 

since he is immune from suit for 

damages); J. D. HAYS, individually 

and in capacity as City director of 

public safety; HALL & EV ANS, 

LLC, and their insurance; JAMES 

"SANDY" HORNER, individually 

and as attorney working for Klauzer 

& Tremaine and his insurance 

company; PAUL HUGHES, 

individually and in capacity and City 

manager; KLAUZER & TREMAINE, 

a law firm, and insurance (true name 

unknown); RANDALL KLAUZER, 

individually and in capacity as an 

attorney and his insurance company; 

CHARLES LANCE, individually and 

in capacity as former district attorney 

and his insurance; ANTHONY 

LETTUNICH, individually and in 

capacity as City attorney and his 

insurance; PAUL R. MCLIMANS, 

individually and in capacity as a 

district attorney and his insurance 

company; WENDIE 

SCHULENBURG, (a.k.a. Rooney), 

individually and in capacity as City 

planning services director and her 

insurance; MELINDA SHERMAN, 

former assistant City attorney, 

individually, and in capacity, and 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 2
their insurance; KERRY ST. JAMES, 

individually and in capacity as deputy 

or assistant district attorney and his 

insurance; JAMES B.F. OLIPHANT, 

Bennett's attorney and purchaser of 

plaintiff's home; SUZANNE 

SCHLICHT, individually and in 

capacity as newspaper publisher and 

her insurance; STEAMBOAT PILOT 

& TODAY NEW SP APER, 

(Worldwest Limited Liability 

Company), and insurance (true name 

unknown); ARIANTHE STETTNER, 

individually and in capacity as City 

council member; PAUL STRONG, 

individually and in capacity as City 

council member and his insurance 

company; RICHARD TREMAINE, 

individually and in capacity as an 

attorney and his insurance company; 

JAMES WEBER, individually and in 

capacity as City public works director 

and his insurance company; 

P. ELIZABETH WITTEMYER, 

individually and in capacity as deputy 

district attorney and her insurance, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

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: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 3
Before T ACHA, HENRY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34. l(G). The cases are 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs-appellants, formerly residents of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, 

appeal from the dismissal of their suit, which purported to state claims against 

numerous defendants who allegedly violated appellants' legal rights with regard 

to zoning decisions that affected appellants and their former neighbors. Although 

appellants filed three separate appeals, all of them challenge the same final 

judgment entered by the district court on March 19, 2004. 

We have reviewed the voluminous district court record. In our view, the 

magistrate judge performed a Herculean feat in his sixty-one page 

recommendation filed on October 14, 2003. He made as much sense as possible 

of appellants' numerous complaints and amended complaints, and cogently 

explained: (1) why they had no valid claim and their suit should be dismissed 

with prejudice; (2) why they should be required to pay defendants' costs and fees 

since January 30, 2003; and (3) why they should be enjoined from commencing 

further litigation regarding these events without first obtaining counsel. The 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 4
district court reviewed the record de novo, and adopted the magistrate judge's 

recommendation in full. 

Appellants' "arguments" on appeal are incomprehensible. Based on our 

review of the district court record, we AFFIRM, as we find no fault with the 

magistrate judge's analysis, as adopted by the district court. We observe that 

appellants did not assert error with the imposition of filing restrictions and, 

therefore, this court will enforce those restrictions. 

Appellees' motion to consolidate the appeals is granted. Appellants' 

motion to file a substitute reply brief is denied. Appellants' other outstanding 

motions-including appellants' motion filed on April 13, 2005, asking this court to 

invite the Department of Justice to investigate the magistrate judge, the district 

court, and defense counsel-are denied as moot or as frivolous and meritless. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Terrence L. O'Brien 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-1152 Document: 010110593139 Date Filed: 04/22/2005 Page: 6