Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01335/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01335-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LEO_M. MULLEN, M.D.; THE CREDIT CARD ) 

CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

HOUSEHOLD BANK-FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; ) 

L. FRANKLIN TAYLOR; THOS BRITT NICHOLS, ) 

doing business as Payne Jones; ) 

THE HONORABLE LEIGHTON FOSSEY; ) 

FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN INSURANCE ) 

CORPORATION, Receiver for Century ) 

Savings Association of Kansas; ) 

RUSSELL W. GUNN, JR.; ROGER VAN PELT; ) 

PETER S. BRUNE; RICHARD D. CARLSON; ) 

ELSON HERNDON; LEROY C. TOMBS; ) 

KENT D. GATES; H. KENTON ZORNES; ) 

EVERETT TOMLIN, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

FEB 1 01989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1335 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C. No. 86-2460) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Leo M. Mullen, M.D., prose. 

John P. Jennings, Jr., Copilevitz, Bryant, Gray & Jennings, P.C., 

Kansas City, Missouri, L. Franklin Taylor, Olathe, Kansas, and 

Gregory J. Bien, Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan and Glassman, 

Topeka, Kansas, for the Appellees. 

Appellate Case: 87-1335 Document: 01019739997 Date Filed: 02/10/1989 Page: 1 
Before BALDOCK, BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BURCIAGA, District 

Judge.* 

*The Honorable 

District Court 

designation. 

PER CURIAM. 

Juan G. Burciaga, 

for the District 

District Judge, United States 

of New Mexico, sitting by 

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. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff commenced this action in district court pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 1332. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that 

defendants had been involved in fraudulent dealings relating to 

his purchase of land and the resulting court proceedings. 

Some of the defendants moved to dismiss for lack ~f subject 

matter jurisdiction. The district court granted these motions on 

the ground that some defendants were not diverse to plaintiffs and 

dismissed the case. Plaintiffs then moved for leave to amend 

their complaint and to dismiss the nondiverse defendants. This 

motion was timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The court denied 

the motion on the ground that even should diversity be 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1335 Document: 01019739997 Date Filed: 02/10/1989 Page: 2 
established, plaintiffs' claims were futile because they had 

failed to state any facts essential to support a claim for fraud. 1 

On appeal plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in 

denying their motion to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs do not 

appeal the district court's original dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Leave to dismiss nondiverse parties should be freely ~ranted 

at any stage of the proceedings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; Varley 

v. Tampax, Inc., 855 F.2d 696, 700 (10th Cir. 1988). However, 

such leave need not be granted if the proposed amendment would be 

futile. See Fernan v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here the 

district court determined that plaintiffs' amended complaint was 

deficient. The court held that defendant, the Honorable Leighton 

Fossey, was entitled to the affirmative defense of judicial 

immunity and further, that the claims against him were timebarred. The court also held that the amended complaint failed to 

state a cause of action for fraud under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). 

Upon review of the proposed amended complaint, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the district court's ruling. 

Defendants Household Bank-Federal Savings Bank, L. Franklin 

Taylor, and Elson Herndon have moved to dismiss the appeal for 

failure to follow the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We do 

1 Following the entry of this order, plaintiffs filed their 

notice of appeal to this court followed by another motion in 

district court to file an amended complaint. Contrary to 

defendants' suggestion, this appeal is nonetheless timely. A 

''motion to reconsider an order disposing of a motion that tolled 

the running of the time for appeal typically does not again toll 

the running of the appeal period." Venable v. Haislip, 721 F.2d 

297, 299 (10th Cir. 1983). 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1335 Document: 01019739997 Date Filed: 02/10/1989 Page: 3 
not grant motions to dismiss for this reason. See 10th Cir. R. 

27.2.1. 

These defendants moved for injunctive relief prohibiting 

plaintiff from bringing further actions against them. Any such 

relief must be sought first in district court. Defendants have 

not indicated that they have done so. See Procup v. Strickland, 

792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986). This court has the 

authority to enjoin plaintiffs from filing appeals to this court. 

28 u.s.c. § 165l(a); Green v. Warden, United States Penitentiary, 

699 F.2d 364, 367 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 960 (1983). 

However, we do not find here the type of malicious action that 

generally justifies the imposition of such an injunction. See 

Green v. Warden, 699 F.2d 364. 

These defendants also moved for sanctions on appeal. 

Plaintiffs have had an opportunity to respond to the request. 

Courts have the inherent power to impose a variety of 

sanctions on ... litigants •.. in order to regulate 

their docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter 

frivolous filings. See, ~' Roadway Express, Inc. v. 

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 •.• (1980); Link v. Wabash 

R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 ... (1962); Whitney v. Cook, 

99 U.S. (9 Otto.) 607 ... (1878). In addition, 

Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912 provide that a 

court of appeals may award just damages and single or 

double costs if the court "determine[s] that an appeal 

is frivolous" or brought for purposes of delay. This 

court has imposed attorney's fees and double costs for 

the taking of frivolous appeals in other contexts. See, 

~, United States v. Rayco, Inc., 616 F.2d 462, ~ 

(10th Cir. 1980). 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 895, 896 (10th Cir. 1986); 

Stafford v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 893, 894-95 (10th Cir. 1986). 

In light of plaintiff's legally frivolous appeal, an award of 

damages and double costs is justified. In district court, 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1335 Document: 01019739997 Date Filed: 02/10/1989 Page: 4 
defendant, the Honorable Leighton Fossey, moved for sanctions 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. This motion was not ruled on. On 

remand, the district court shall also consider the merits of this 

motion. We note that the imposition of sanctions is not optional 

should the district court find a Rule 11 violation. See Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc, v. Hand, 763 F.2d 1184, 1187 (10th Cir. 1985); accord 

Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866, 870 (5th Cir. 

1988)(en bane). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Kansas is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the 

district court to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded 

for taking a legally frivolous appeal. The district court may 

"look to the principles that have evolved in the interpretation of 

Rule 11" in assessing the amount of the sanction awarded pursuant 

to Rule 38 and § 1912. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 

n.21 (5th Cir. 1988)(quoting Sparks v. National Labor Relations 

Bd., 835 F.2d 705, 707 (7th Cir. 1987)). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

5 

Appellate Case: 87-1335 Document: 01019739997 Date Filed: 02/10/1989 Page: 5