Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01100/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaun Rosiere
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

SHAUN ROSIERE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 16-1100 

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00143-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Shaun Rosiere appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) pro se complaint as duplicative of other complaints he 

filed in the District of Nevada and the District of New Jersey.1

 Exercising 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 *

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

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Although we liberally construe pro se filings, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 

U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), we may not “assume the role of advocate,” Yang v. 

Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted); see also 

United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009), and we do not “fashion 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

May 24, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1100 Document: 01019626108 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

On January 19, 2016, Mr. Rosiere sued in the District of Colorado, alleging 

several federal agencies failed to timely respond to his multiple FOIA requests. The 

district court took judicial notice of two other complaints Mr. Rosiere had filed: one 

in the District of Nevada on November 16, 2015 (Rosiere v. US, 2:15-cv-02187 (D. 

Nev.)) and the other in the District of New Jersey on January 19, 2016 (Rosiere v. 

US, 3:16-cv-341 (D. N.J.)). In each of his three complaints, he alleged FOIA 

violations and attached identical FOIA requests. 

The court ordered Mr. Rosiere to show cause why his case should not be 

dismissed as duplicative of these other cases. He responded that the FOIA requests 

he attached to his complaints in the Districts of Nevada and New Jersey were sent to 

agencies on different days than the FOIA requests he attached to his District of 

Colorado complaint. The district court dismissed his complaint. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of Mr. 

Rosiere’s complaint as duplicative of his other federal complaints. See Katz v. 

Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have discretion to 

control their dockets by dismissing duplicative cases.”); Trippe Mfg. Co. v. Am. 

Power Conversion Corp., 46 F.3d 624, 629 (7th Cir. 1995) (“A district court has ‘an 

ample degree of discretion’ in deferring to another federal proceeding involving the 

same parties and issues to avoid duplicative litigation.” (quoting Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. 

C–O–Two Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952))). 

 

. . . arguments for [pro se litigants],” United States v. Fisher, 38 F.3d 1144, 1147 

(10th Cir. 1994). 

Appellate Case: 16-1100 Document: 01019626108 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

“Federal district courts have the inherent power to administer their dockets so 

as to conserve scarce judicial resources.” Trippe, 46 F.3d at 629. “As between 

federal district courts, . . . though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle 

is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. 

United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). Under this principle, “[w]here two cases 

between the same parties on the same cause of action are commenced in two different 

[f]ederal courts, the one which is commenced first is to be allowed to proceed to its 

conclusion . . . .” UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 685 F.3d 1118, 1124 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted, first brackets in original). “[F]or an action to 

be ‘duplicative’ of another, so as to warrant its dismissal for that reason alone, the 

one must be materially on all fours with the other.” Cong. Credit Corp. v. AJC Int’l, 

Inc., 42 F.3d 686, 689 (1st Cir. 1994). 

Mr. Rosiere contends the district court misapplied FOIA, which requires 

agencies to create “individualized tracking numbers” for each FOIA request. 5 

U.S.C. § 552(7)(A). He seems to argue this language in § 552(7)(A) means he may 

sue for identical FOIA requests in two separate courts so long as each FOIA request 

is made on a separate date and assigned an individualized tracking number. But 

FOIA does not allow a party to seek “orders from two different judges directing the 

production of the same documents.” UtahAmerican Energy, 685 F.3d at 1124; see 

also Beck v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 88-3433, 1991 WL 519827, at *5 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 

1991) (declining to rule on a FOIA request for certain documents because those 

documents overlapped with documents sought in a suit filed in another court). 

Appellate Case: 16-1100 Document: 01019626108 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

Mr. Rosiere’s FOIA requests underlying the complaints he filed in three 

separate federal district courts are identical except for their dates.2

 Notwithstanding 

the different dates, the district court correctly concluded his complaint was 

“materially on all fours,” Cong. Credit Corp., 42 F.3d at 689, with the complaints he 

filed in the Districts of Nevada and New Jersey. The District of Colorado complaint 

was also not the first he filed in federal court—he filed the District of Nevada 

complaint approximately two months before filing in the District of Colorado. The 

district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mr. Rosiere’s 

complaint. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. We also deny Mr. Rosiere’s motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT, 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

 2

 Like the district court, we take judicial notice of the complaints Mr. Rosiere 

filed in the Districts of Nevada and New Jersey. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. 

Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 605 F.2d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir. 1979) (“[F]ederal courts, in 

appropriate circumstances, may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both 

within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct 

relation to matters at issue.”). 

Appellate Case: 16-1100 Document: 01019626108 Date Filed: 05/24/2016 Page: 4