Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07054/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Fullbright
Appellee
Raymond Herschel Johnson
Appellant
Bill Roller
Appellee
Denise Spears
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAYMOND HERSCHEL JOHNSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

Uaited Sr,.tes Q,un of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

DEC 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

DENISE SPEARS, ) 

No. 90-7054 

(D.C. No. 90-299-S) 

( E • D. Okla. ) 

BILL ROLLER, and ) 

DAVE FULLBRIGHT ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant sued the various defendants under 42 u.s.c. Sl983. 

The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the 

appellant had failed to comply with the court's order entered 

against plaintiff in two earlier consolidated cases. The order 

restricted the appellant's future ability to file in forma 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7054 Document: 010110097353 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 1 
pauperis. The restrictions on future filings amounted to 

requirements that the appellant 1) show good cause why he should 

be allowed to file at the public's expense; 2) list all previous 

cases filed on the same or related grounds; 3) list all previous 

cases filed against the same defendants or their offices; and 4) 

submit proof that the defendants had been sent a copy of the 

complaint. 

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint in this case. This 

court has found that reasonable restrictions may be placed upon a 

prisoner's ability to file in forma pauperis when that prisoner 

has demonstrated a propensity towards abusive, vexatious, or 

repetitive claims. See Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208-09 

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 985 (1981). This prisoner has 

clearly demonstrated such a tendency. See Exhibit to Br. of 

Appellee (reproduction of the consolidated cases of Johnson v. 

Praytor, Case No. 85-543-C, (E.D. Okla., Dec. 30, 1985) and 

Johnson v. Brown, Case No. 85-275-C, (E.D. Okla., Dec. 30, 1985), 

delineating the abusive filings of appellant and placing 

restrictions upon him for future filings). Therefore, we see no 

error in the restrictions placed upon him, nor in the district 

court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with 

those restrictions. 

We AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-7054 Document: 010110097353 Date Filed: 12/26/1990 Page: 2