Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01774/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01774-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

PUBLISH U«1itcd States Court of Appeals 'tenth c; .. ..,_~i~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ._! ;)l Q ? 1'389 

TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ANANT KUMAR TRIPATI, ) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. ) No. 88-1774 

) (D.C. No. Misc. 88-014) 

WILLIAM C. BEAMAN, ) (D. Wyo.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

(D.C. No. Misc. 88-014) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Anant Kumar Tripati, pro se. 

William c. Beaman, pro se. 

Before McKAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District 

Judge.* 

*The Honorable Wesley E. Brown, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Anant Kumar Tripati seeks review of an order of the 

United States District Court for the District of Wyoming 

dismissing his action against the clerk of that court, brought 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged 

the clerk was not properly processing plaintiff's papers and 

specifically that a notice of appeal had been lost or misplaced. 

In addition to dismissing the action, the court directed that the 

clerk would file no further complaints or other pleadings without 

leave of the court and· that if leave were not granted in ten days, 

the clerk was to return plaintiff's papers to him. 

The ''misplaced" notice of appeal was the subject of this 

court's decision in United States v. Tripati, No. 87-2474 (10th 

Cir. filed Oct. 20, 1988). We therefore consider only whether the 

restrictions placed on plaintiff's future filings are proper. 

A district court has power under 28 u.s.c. § 165l(a) to 

enjoin litigants who abuse the court system by harassing their 

opponents. Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th 

Cir. 1980)(history of case revealed plaintiff had forced 

defendants in and out of court for five years); In re Oliver, 682 

F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982)(scope of All Writs Act includes 

district court's issuance of order restricting filing of meritless 

cases); Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st Cir. 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 2 
1985)(§ 165l{a) authorizes federal courts to issue writs necessary 

or appropriate in aid of respective jurisdictions); In re Hartford 

Textile Corp., 681 F.2d 895, 897 {2d Cir. 1982)(§ 165l{a) empowers 

court to give injunctive relief against vexatious litigant), cert. 

denied, 459 U.S. 1206 (1983); Chandler v. O'Bryan, 445 F.29 1045, 

1056 {10th Cir. 197l)(federal court has power to enjoin harassing 

and vexatious litigation in appropriate circumstances), cert. 

denied, 405 U.S. 964 (1972). Appellate courts enjoy the same 

power. Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342 (10th Cir. 1989) 

(declining to entertain original writs alleging only grievances 

against prison officials); Green v. Warden, 699 F.2d 364, 367 (7th 

Cir.)(appellate court has power under§ 165l(a) to issue writs and 

orders in aid of jurisdiction), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 960 (1983); 

Green v. Carlson, 649 F.2d 285, 287 (5th Cir.)(conditioning filing 

of original proceedings as well as pleadings in district courts}, 

cert. denied,· 454 U.S. 1087 (1981); see also In re McDonald, 109 

S. Ct. 993, 994 (1989). 

This court's opinion in Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 

902-903 (10th Cir. 1986) is instructive: 

There is strong precedent establishing the inherent 

power of federal courts to regulate the activities of 

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored 

restrictions under the appropriate circumstances. See, 

~, In re Martin~Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 

1984); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1982); In re 

Green, 669 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Pavilonis v. King, 

626 F.2d 1075 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 829, 

101 S. Ct. 96, 66 L.Ed.2d 34 (1980); Gordon v. United 

States Dept. of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1977). 

''[E]ven onerous conditions" may be imposed upon a 

litigant as long as they are designed to assist the 

district court in curbing the particular abusive 

behavior involved. Carter v. United States, 733 F.2d 

735, 737 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, U.S. 

105 s. Ct. 915, 83 L.Ed.2d 928 (1985) (quoting In~-re 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 3 
Green, 669 F.2d 779, 786 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). The 

conditions cannot be so burdensome, however, as to deny 

a litigant meaningful access to the courts. See Bounds 

v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 

(1977). 

Here, the district court required that plaintiff 

meet the following preconditions before filing future 

actions: (1) he must carry a stronger burden of prpof 

that he is economically unable to pay filing fees; (2) 

he must demonstrate to the court that his action is 

commenced in good faith and not malicious or "without 

arguable merit"; (3) his pleadings must be certified as 

provided by Fed. R. Civ. P.11; (4) he must include in 

every complaint filed a list of every previous action 

filed; and (5) he must send all pleadings to the 

defendants and provide the court with proof of service. 

These preconditions are clearly the type of carefully 

tailored restrictions contemplated by the various courts 

that have addressed the question of restraints on 

abusive litigants. See In re Green, supra (litigant 

required to certify that claims advanced have never been 

raised befor~); Green v. White, 616 F.2d 1054, 1055 (8th 

Cir. 1980) (litigant required to list all causes 

previously filed on same, similar, or related actions); 

Graham v. Riddle, 554 F.2d 133, 134-35 (4th Cir. 1977) 

(prefiling review and denial of leave to file in forma 

pauperis except upon a showing of good cause). Thus, 

the restrictions imposed were appropriate. 

Litigiousness alone will not support an injunction 

restricting filing activities. In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446; 

Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1079 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 

449 U.S. 829 (1980); Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d at 408; 

Ruderer v. United States, 462 F.2d 897, 899 (8th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 409 U.S. 1031 (1972). 

However, injunctions are proper where the litigant's abusive 

and lengthy history is properly set forth. See, ~, Johnson v. 

Cowl~, 872 F.2d at 344-46; Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d at 

409 n.11; Green v. Warden, 699 F.2d at 365-66 (listing chronology 

of filings); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 781-85 (D.C. Cir. 

198l)(reciting extensive litigation history); Franklin v. Murphy, 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 4 
745 F.2d 1221, 1229-36 (9th Cir. 1984)(listing cases); Peck v. 

Hoff, 660 F.2d 371, 374 and. n.2 (8th Cir. 198l)(eighteen cases 

filed and twenty-three more ready to file warranted injunction); 

Ruderer v. United States, 462 F.2d at 899 n.2 (listing cases); In 

re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1264-74 (2d Cir. 1984)(~eciting 

cases); In re Hartford Textile Corp., 681 F.2d at 896-97 (reciting 

history of abusive litigation); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 

1291-95 (8th Cir. 1988)(reciting abusive litigation history); 

Carter v. Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 944, 954-88 (S.D. Tex. 

1977)(listing 178 previously filed actions); cf. Sires v. Gabriel, 

748 F.2d 49, 52 (1st Cir. 1984)(absent findings of abuse of 

judicial process or harassment of defendants, injunction is 

improper). 

In sum, _the right of access to the courts is neither absolute 

nor unconditional, In re Green, 669 F.2d at 785, and there is no 

constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an 

action that is frivolous or malicious. Phillips v. Carey, 638 

F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985 (1981); 

State v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1486 (D. Colo. 1986). No one, 

rich or poor, is entitled to abuse the judicial process. Hardwick 

v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 1975). 

In addition to the limitations upheld by this court in Cotner 

v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d at 902, there are other restrictions 

available to the district court. See Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 

F. 2d 1431, 14·37 (10th Cir. 1986) (prohibiting complaints raising 

same or similar allegations in case at bar); Castro v. United 

States, 775 F.2d at 402 (injunction barred further pleadings in 

5 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 5 
case or further iitigation with respect to specific subject 

matter); Lacks v. Fahrni, 623 F.2d 254, 257 (2d Cir. 1980)(same); 

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d at 1232 (beyond six actions per year, 

litigant required to obtain leave of court, certify claims are 

new, and providing for punishment for contempt if litigant failed 

to certify or certified falsely); see also Procup v. Strickland, 

792 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 nn.2-10 (11th Cir. 1986)(en 

banc)(collecting cases employing various restrictions); Green v. 

Warden, 699 F.2d at 367 (allowing only new claims never before 

raised or disposed of); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d at 1295 (inmate 

restricted to one free complaint per month unless immediate 

physical harm claimed). 

Concomitant with the restrictions available to the district 

court, however, there must be some guidelines as to what plaintiff 

must do to obtain the court's permission to file an action. See 

Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(in 

enjoining litigant from further filings, court specified 

conditions for obtaining leave of court); In re Green, 669 F.2d at 

787-788 (D.C. Cir. 198l)(listing requirements for filing); Green 

v. White, 616 F.2d at 1055-56 (specifying procedures to be 

followed); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d at 902; Carter v. 

Telectron, 452 F. Supp. at 1003. Because there are no such 

provisions set forth in the district court's injunction, the grant 

or denial of leave to file an action is left completely to the 

whim of the court. 

In addition, Mr. Tripati is entitled to notice and an 

opportunity to oppose the court's order before it is instituted. 

6 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 6 
Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81, 83 (3d Cir. 1987)(prior 

notice required); In re Oliver, 682 F.2d at 446 (same); In re 

Hartford Textile Corp., 613 F.2d 388, 390 (2d Cir. 1979)(district 

court must assume burden to notify party to be enjoined and to 

invite response), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907 (1980); ~ also 

Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d at 1077 (magistrate recommended 

restrictions on filing new actions; plaintiff filed objections to 

recommendation). 

The notice and opportunity requirement does not, however, 

require an in-person hearing in the district court. Mr. Tripati 

is perfectly capable of reducing his objections to writing. 

Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings 

that part of the district court's judgment imposing restrictions 

on plaintiff's future filings. The judgment is affirmed in a+l 

other respects. We emphasize that the district court's discretion 

in tailoring appropriate conditions under which Mr. Tripati may 

commence and prosecute future lawsuits is extremely broad and that 

we will not disturb that court's choice of requirements absent 

abuse of that discretion. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED 

in part. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

7 

Appellate Case: 88-1774 Document: 01019743349 Date Filed: 07/07/1989 Page: 7