Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07089/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Baker
Not Party
Caril Barron
Appellant
Joseph F. Smith
Appellee
TBC, Inc.
Not Party

Document Text:

rP\1

. t· ERE FILED 

~itcd States Court of Appeals 

-r ... ,,th (i:~~; t 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAN 31 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JOSEPH F. SMITH, and JOSEPH F. ) 

SMITH d/b/a ALIBABA, LTD. d/b/a) 

CACHE, LTD. ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

TBC, INC., and JAMES D. BAKER, ) 

) 

Defendants, ) 

) 

CARIL BARRON, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Nos. 89-7089, 89-7094, 

and 89-7095 

(D.C. Nos. 88-637-C) 

(88-638-C & 88-639-C) 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Number 89-7089 is an appeal from a default judgment entered 

in accordance with Local Rule 14(a) of the Local Rules of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. 

In part, that rule provides that a party against whom a motion for 

summary judgment is filed must respond to the motion within ten 

days. Failure to respond constitutes an admission of the issues 

raised in the motion. Appellant, Ms. Barron, failed to respond to 

Appellate Case: 89-7089 Document: 01019961724 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 1 
a motion for partial summary judgment, and after delaying 

disposition for more than three months, the court granted relief 

in accordance with Rule 14(a). We affirm. 

Ms. Barron's brief is virtually incoherent. She asserts 

circumstances having no bearing on the question of whether 

judgment was properly entered against her, thus making difficult a 

proper understanding of her contentions. Accordingly, we have 

undertaken an independent review of the record to determine 

whether a basis exists for reversal. 

We do not have before us a complete record of all the papers 

filed in the district court in support of plaintiffs' motion for 

summary judgment; consequently, we have no indication of why 

plaintiffs asserted there were no factual disputes in connection 

with the claim for which summary judgment was sought. It does 

appear, however, that the motion was duly served upon Ms. Barron 

and that she did not respond. The record further indicates that 

Ms. Barron (at this point acting as her own attorney) filed no 

less than thirteen separate, and often lengthy, pleadings between 

the time the motion for partial summary judgment and the entry of 

the order granting the motion. 

It is clear during that period, Ms. Barron was actively 

litigating and did not abandon this proceeding. We cannot, 

therefore, fault the district court for its adherence to its local 

*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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7089 Document: 01019961724 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 2 
rule. For that entire period between the filing of the motion and 

the granting of the motion, Ms. Barron filed no paper of any kind 

contesting the entry of partial summary judgment. That default 

constituted "a confession of the matters raised by [the motion for 

summary judgment]," Rule 14(a), Local Rules for the Eastern 

District of Oklahoma. 

While Ms. Barron now interjects into her appellate brief many 

summary contentions of varying proportions, we have not been able 

to discern any reason why she defaulted in responding to the 

motion for partial summary judgment. 1 Accordingly, the judgment 

of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

In numbers 89-7094 and 89-7095, the district court has denied 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the appeals are not 

taken in good faith. We agree. Appellant has moved in this court 

for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs. The 

motion is denied. Since appellant can make no rational argument 

on the law and the facts in support of the appeals, the fees are 

waived and the appeals are dismissed as frivolous. 

United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). 

Coppedge v. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

1 rndeed, 

convicted 

judgment. 

convicted 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

it even appears Ms. Barron believes she has been 

of some criminal offense as a consequence of the 

For her benefit, we affirmatively state she was 

of no crime in this case. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7089 Document: 01019961724 Date Filed: 01/31/1990 Page: 3