Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06141/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

... 

FI LED 

Uoited Stite, CtJurr of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ci:cuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 10 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECK..ER 

Clerk 

ISA ABDULLAH RAMADAN SHABAZZ, ) 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

STEPHEN KAISER; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, 

Respondents-Aooellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6131 & 90-6141 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-479-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Isa Abdullah Ramadan Shabazz, proceeding 

prose and in forma pauperis, seeks a certificate of probable 

cause in order to appeal the dismissal of his habeas petition 

under 28 u.s.c. § 2254. See 28 u.s.c. § 2253 (certificate of 

probable cause required for appeal); Lozada v. Deeds, 111 S. Ct. 

860, 861-62 (1991) (standards for granting). Shabazz is a 

"frequent filer" who has, so far, brought twenty-nine federal 

* 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. 

** 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6141 Document: 010110118865 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 1 
court actions during the eighteen years of his incarceration 

challenging his conviction and the conditions of his confinement. 

In Phillips v. Kaiser, 1 No. CIV-88-2239-R, unpub. order (W.D. 

Okla. Feb. 16, 1989), in an endeavor to curb Shabazz's abusive 

litigation practices, the district court imposed five 

preconditions on his future habeas filings. Under the district 

court's order, Shabazz must (1) carry a stronger burden of proof 

that he lacks the means to pay his filing fees; (2) demonstrate 

that each action is brought in good faith, is not malicious and 

has arguable merit; 2 (3) certify his pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 11; (4) include with each filing a list of every previous 

action; and (5) send all pleadings to respondents and provide the 

court with proof of service. Id. at 11. In the instant case, the 

district court found that Shabazz failed to comply with these 

requirements and consequently dismissed his action. Shabazz v. 

Kaiser, No. CIV-90-479-R, unpub. order, (W.D. Okla. Mar. 28, 

1990). 

"[A]n indigent person has no constitutional or other right of 

access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous, 

malicious, or which seeks to harass." Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 

207, 209 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985 (1981). A 

1 Many of Shabazz's previous filings are styled in his former 

name, Jimmy Phillips. 

2 In the context of Shabazz's successive habeas petitions 

concerning his conviction, we think that this condition requires 

Shahbaz to address why any petition he files does not constitute 

an abuse of the writ. See Mccleskey v. Zant, 111 s. Ct. 1454, 

1470-71 (1991). -

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6141 Document: 010110118865 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 2 
•' 

district court therefore retains discretion to place restrictions 

on future filings by "litigants who seek to advance repetitive 

causes, who file actions for obviously malicious purposes, and who 

generally abuse the processes." Id. In the context of original 

jurisdiction, both the Supreme Court and this court have exercised 

inherent power to curb abusive filings by limiting the 

availability of in forma pauperis status. See In Re McDonald, 109 

S. Ct. 993, 996 (1989); Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342, 344 (10th 

Cir. 1989). Any restriction on a petitioner, however, must be 

"carefully tailored" to "assist the district court in curbing the 

particular abusive behavior involved." Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 

F.2d 900, 902 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 

F.2d 351 (10th Cir. 1989). 

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal 

construing Shabazz's prose pleadings liberally as required under 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1971). The restrictions 

placed on Shabazz's future filing activities in Phillips v. Kaiser 

are substantially similar to those approved by this court in 

Cotner, 795 F.2d at 902 and reaffirmed in Tripati, 878 F.2d at 

353. As such, they are carefully tailored to curb his abusive 

litigation practices. Shabazz's complaint in the instant action 

does not come close to satisfying these conditions. Thus, 

dismissal of Shabazz's action did not violate his constitutional 

right of access to the courts. 

Because Shabazz failed to make a substantial showing of the 

denial of a federal right, see Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6141 Document: 010110118865 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 3 
.. 

892-93 (1983), his application for a certificate of probable cause 

is DENIED. Shabazz's motion for expedited consideration, see 10th 

Cir. R. 27.3, is DENIED as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-6141 Document: 010110118865 Date Filed: 06/10/1991 Page: 4