Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02196/USCOURTS-ca10-04-02196-0/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 ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 15 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

TOM OLSEN; NAOMI OLSEN, and 

Does I through IV, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

V. 

ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

Department of Education, Division of 

Vocational Rehabilitation; MICHAEL 

DA VIS, State Superintendent of 

Public Instruction; TERRY 

BRIGANCE, Assistant Superintendent 

for Division of Vocational 

Rehabilitation; LENA TRUJILLO 

CHAVEZ, Vocational Rehabilitation; 

LARRY BORREGO, Assistant 

Director Vocational Rehabilitation; 

ANTHONY LUJAN, Area Manager 

Vocational Rehabilitation; CHARLES 

WHITE, Division of Vocation 

Rehabilitation Director, Disability 

Determination Services; LEE 

MARTINEZ, Vocational 

Rehabilitation, sued individually and 

in his official capacity; KAREN 

PROVINE; NADINE WELLS; 

JUDITH TES SE TANNER, 

Department of Vocational 

Rehabilitation; ELIZABETH 

EMERSON, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-2196 

(D.C. No. CIV-03-207 JB/LCS) 

(D. N.M.) 

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 1
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs Tom Olsen and Naomi Olsen, proceeding pro se, appeal the 

district court's orders dismissing their complaint against defendants, the State of 

New Mexico Department of Education, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 

(DVR), ten DVR employees in their official capacities, and one DVR employee in 

his official and individual capacity. We affirm, and we order the Olsens to show 

cause why they should not be subject to prospective filing restrictions in this 

court. 

I. 

The Olsens, who receive Social Security disability benefits, alleged in their 

complaint that defendants provided them unsatisfactory assistance in their 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 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 I 0th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 2
attempts to participate in the Social Security Administration's "Ticket-to-Work" 

program. The "Ticket-to-Work" program is a voluntary program in which eligible 

disability recipients can receive vouchers from the Social Security Administration 

that they can use to obtain employment services, vocational services or other 

services from a participating employment network that is willing to provide such 

services to the disabled in order to help them work. See Ticket to Work and SelfSufficiency Program, 42 U .S.C. § 1320b-19; 20 C.F.R. § 411.100-411. 730 

("Ticket-to-Work program"). New Mexico's DVR is a participating employment 

network and provides assistance and benefit counseling to Ticket-to-Work 

participants. See http://www.dvrgetsjobs.com/DVRTTW /Tto WDefault.htm. 

Both Mr. and Mrs. Olsen sought to participate in the Ticket-to-Work 

program. They alleged in their complaint, filed in February 2003, that defendants 

did not schedule convenient meeting times or places with them and took other 

actions that delayed or prevented them from participating in the program. The 

Olsens repeatedly threatened to file legal actions against defendants when they 

were unsatisfied with a proposed meeting time or place, and they claim that 

defendants failed to provide them with an unbiased administrative hearing with 

respect to their grievances. Their complaint listed over thirty causes of action 

against defendants, including violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; Title VII; the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 3
Racketeering, Influencing and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Administrative Procedures Act; the Americans 

with Disability Act (ADA); the Social Security Act; the New Mexico Constitution 

and Bylaws; and the Equal Access to Justice Act. They also asserted claims for 

breach of contract; breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; interference 

with pending civil actions; abuse of process; interference with prospective 

business advantage; loss of consortium; defamation; slander; violation of court 

orders; malpractice; malfeasance; and unconscionability. Their complaint made 

no attempt to link any of their factual allegations to any of their causes of action. 

The defendants filed their first motion to dismiss in April 2003, seeking 

dismissal of the constitutional claims and ADA claims against the state agency 

and its employees, as these are barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh 

Amendment, and dismissal of the state tort claims, as these are barred by the 

Eleventh Amendment and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act. The Olsens failed to 

respond. The district court, ruling on the merits rather than on the Olsens' lack of 

response, granted that motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the 

district court sua sponte dismissed the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 

1986, 2000e-2, 2000e-5, RICO, and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth 

Amendments for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 

Fed. R. Civ. R. 12(b)(6). In July 2003, Tom Olsen filed a late opposition to the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 4
April 2003 motion to dismiss, stating he had moved from New Mexico to 

California, where he had been hospitalized and had not received the motion or any 

of the court's orders. The district court treated this as a motion for 

reconsideration, and denied it. The case was reassigned to a different district 

court judge in September 2003. 

In February 2004, the defendants filed their second motion to dismiss, 

detailing why they were entitled to dismissal of all the remaining claims. Because 

the Olsens had filed so many claims against so many parties, the motion was 

forty-three pages long, and attached a five-page chart outlining the different 

claims against the different defendants. Again, the Olsens did not file a response. 

The district court scheduled a hearing on May 17, 2004, to consider the 

motion to dismiss. Three days before the scheduled hearing, the Olsens filed a 

untimely response, three months late, again claiming that Tom Olsen's 

hospitalization had prevented them from receiving notice of defendants' motion 

or the court's order. The Olsens' late response did not address any of the legal 

issues raised in defendants' motion to dismiss, and provided no factual or legal 

argument as to why it should not be granted. Rather, the Olsens "elect[ ed] to 

stand on their complaint ... without responding to the excess verbiage" of the 

defendants' motion to dismiss. R. Doc. 30, at 4. The district court reset the 

hearing for July 13, 2004. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 5
The Olsens failed to appear at that hearing. The district court had 

permitted them to appear telephonically, and repeatedly sought to contact them by 

phone beginning one hour before the hearing, but never received any response. 

The district court conducted a one-hour hearing, questioning counsel for 

defendants as to each claim. The court then dismissed all of the remaining 

claims, based on the reasoning given in the record at the hearing. This appeal 

followed. 

In a four-page opening brief, the Olsens claim error generally in the district 

court's ruling, arguing that it dismissed their claims without legal cause. They do 

not, however, articulate any factual or legal argument in support of their general, 

and in large part indecipherable, statements. They offer no authority or 

cognizable legal argument for reversing the district court's judgment. Rather than 

pointing to any specific legal error or making any specific objection to any 

particular ruling or issue, the Olsens simply ask this court whether the district 

court had legal cause to dismiss the case and whether the defendants followed the 

law. 1 

The Olsens filed a five-page reply brief that raised two arguments for the 

first time. "This court does not ordinarily review issues raised for the first time 

in a reply brief." Stump v. Gates, 211 F.3d 527, 533 (10th Cir. 2000); see also 

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979,984 n. 7 (10th Cir. 1994) 

(failing to raise issue in opening brief waives that issue). The Olsens first 

contend that all of defendants' arguments in support of the district court's rulings 

( continued ... ) 

-6-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 6
This court has held that reasoned arguments must be presented addressing 

grounds for appeal. See United States v. Kunzman, 54 F .3d 1522, 1534 (10th Cir. 

1995). Moreover, the party challenging the district court's judgment must 

support his argument with legal argument or authority. See Fed. R. App. 28(a); 

Phillips v. Calhoun, 956 F .2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1992). Although this court is 

obligated to construe prose pleadings liberally, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 

519, 520-21 ( 1972), we "will not construct arguments or theories for the plaintiff 

in the absence of any discussion of those issues," Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 

927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991), and we need not address an issue that has 

been inadequately developed or argued on appeal, see Murrell v. Sha/ala, 43 F.3d 

13 88, 13 89 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that perfunctory complaints of error that 

fail to develop an issue are insufficient to invoke appellate review). Even a pro 

se appellant must clearly apprise the court why he believes a reversible error has 

been made and make an argument with authority supporting such a belief. 

1 ( ... continued) 

were presented to this court for the first time on appeal. That assertion is simply 

inaccurate, as all of defendants' arguments were presented in their motions to 

dismiss. Second, the Olsens contend the district court failed to give any 

reasoning for its rulings. To the contrary, the district court's first two orders of 

dismissals provided detailed reasons for those rulings, and its final order of 

dismissal referred to the detailed reasons it gave for dismissing each claim at the 

hearing, a transcript of which is included in the record on appeal. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 7
None of the Olsens' statements in their opening brief constitute adequate 

argument challenging the detailed findings and conclusions of the district court. 

Therefore, in light of lack of anything even approaching reasoned argument or 

legal authority, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See United 

States v. Hardwell, 80 F.3d 1471, 1492 (10th Cir. 1996). 

II. 

This is not the first time the Olsens have filed an appeal in this court that 

lacks merit. The Olsens have filed numerous jurisdictionally defective or 

meritless appeals in this court against a variety of other parties. See Olsen v. 

Quality Continuum Hospice, Inc., No. 04-2073 (10th Cir. Oct. 14, 2004) 

(dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for untimely notice of appeal); Olsen v. Mapes, 

No. 04-2082 (10th Cir. Jul. 8, 2004) (appeal dismissed for lack of prosecution 

pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 42 .1 ); Olsen v. Aebersold, Nos. 01-2366 and 02-2288, 71 

Fed. Appx. 7, 9 (10th Cir. Jul. 11, 2003) (vacating district court's meritsdismissal because Olsens' claim was so insubstantial, implausible and devoid of 

merit that lower court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for lack of a federal 

controversy); Olsen v. United States Department of Labor, Nos. 01-9519, 01-

9540, 02-9529 (10th Cir. May 21, 2002) (three petitions for review transferred to 

Ninth Circuit based on lack of jurisdiction in this court); Olsen v. Triple A 

Machine Shop, Inc., No. 01-2275 (10th Cir. Jan. 8, 2002) (affirming dismissal for 

-8-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 8
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and noting Olsens' argument on appeal was 

without merit). 

Further, the Ninth Circuit has imposed filing restrictions on the Olsens 

because of their history of filing repetitious and frivolous appeals. R. Doc. 34, 

Ex. A and B (attaching copies of two orders: In re Olsen, No. 04-8007 (9th Cir. 

Mar. 22, 2004) (unpublished order imposing filing restriction) and (9th Cir. 

Feb. 5, 2004) (unpublished order to show cause)). The Ninth Circuit prohibited 

the Olsens from filing any prose appeals in that court after finding that they had 

filed nineteen rneritless appeals in that court, nine of which had been dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction and three of which had been dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. See id. 

The Olsens' filings in this case have been frivolous, abusive, and vexatious. 

They asserted over thirty claims against a dozen state defendants and a state 

agency. To answer their complaint, the defendants were forced to prepare 

detailed and time-consuming motions and pleadings and to attend a court hearing. 

Yet throughout the legal proceedings that they instigated, the Olsens have never 

made any attempt to justify or prosecute their lawsuit in either the district court or 

this court. Indeed, they failed to file a timely response to every motion in the 

district court and failed to appear telephonically at the court-ordered hearing. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 9
This court "has the inherent power to impose sanctions that are necessary to 

regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency, and deter . .. frivolous filings." 

Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1986); Braley v. 

Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir. 1987). If"a party 'has engaged in a 

pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive,' restrictions are 

appropriate," including an order enjoining a litigant from filing any prose claims 

without first seeking prior leave of the court. Winslow v. Homer (In re Winslow), 

17 F .3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F .2d 342, 344 

(10th Cir. 1989)); see also Werner v. State of Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1447-48 ( 10th 

Cir. 1994); Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). 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."' Winslow, 17 F .3d at 315 ( quoting Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F .2d 

351,353 (10th Cir. 1989)). 

The Court concludes that this appeal and others filed by the Olsens, as 

detailed above, have been groundless, abusive, and vexatious. We therefore 

inform the Olsens that we may impose restrictions on their filings in this court 

using our inherent power to regulate federal dockets, promote judicial efficiency, 

and deter frivolous filings. See Werner, 32 F.3d at 1448-49; 28 U.S .C. § 1651. 

Accordingly, we order the Olsens to show cause, within twenty days of the date of 

-10-

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 10
this order and judgment, why they should not be barred from filing any future 

civil appeals in this court unless they are represented by a licensed attorney or 

first obtain permission from this court to proceed prose. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Olsens' request for 

summary reversal is DENIED. The Olsens are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why 

they should not be subject to prospective filing restrictions. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-11-

Entered for the Court 

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 11
Appellate Case: 04-2196 Document: 010110534239 Date Filed: 04/15/2005 Page: 12