Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02107/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melissa Alm
Appellee
Kaydee Culbertson
Appellee
Los Reyes Firewood
Appellant
Barbara Hill
Appellee
Human Services Department (ISD) Personnel
Appellee
Rosemarie Lara
Appellee
Susana Martinez
Appellee
Karen Ballard Molzen
Appellee
Other Joinder Parties not yet mentioned
Appellee
Pablo Reyes
Appellant
Betsy Salcedo
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

LOS REYES FIREWOOD; PABLO 

REYES, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SUSANA MARTINEZ, State of New 

Mexico's Governor; HUMAN SERVICES 

DEPARTMENT (ISD) PERSONNEL; 

BETSY SALCEDO; KAYDEE 

CULBERTSON; ROSEMARIE LARA; 

KAREN BALLARD MOLZEN, United 

States Magistrate Judge; BARBARA 

HILL; MELISSA ALM, or Elw; OTHER 

JOINDER PARTIES NOT YET 

MENTIONED, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-2107

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-00326-JB-WPL)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Plaintiffs Los Reyes Firewood and Pablo Reyes seek to appeal a magistrate 

judge’s order striking two pleadings that were filed in violation of Mr. Reyes’ filing 

restrictions in the district court and prohibiting Mr. Reyes from further filings in the case.

The matter below was referred to the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (b)(3). The order of a magistrate judge acting pursuant to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 1 
2

these provisions is not directly appealable to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Colo. 

Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Anderson Constr., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal and the appeal is DISMISSED.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS COURT SHOULD NOT IMPOSE 

FILING RESTRICTIONS ON PABLO REYES a/k/a PABLO REYES, JR. 

a/k/a PAUL KEITH REYES

In addition, based on his history of frivolous filings and abuse of the judicial 

process, we consider sua sponte whether to impose restrictions on future filings by Mr. 

Reyes in this court. In this regard, we note that Pablo Reyes is also known as Pablo 

Reyes, Jr. and as Paul Keith Reyes.1

“Even though we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal, we have 

jurisdiction to impose filing restrictions based on [Mr. Reyes’] conduct in this and other

cases.” Judd v. Univ. of N.M., 204 F.3d 1041, 1044 (10th Cir. 2000). In the absence of 

jurisdiction, we do not consider whether the appeal is frivolous on the merits, but more 

generally, whether Mr. Reyes’ conduct is abusive, “as shown by, for example, a history 

of repetitive and meritless claims . . . .” Okon v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 26 F.3d 

1025, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

We have already warned Mr. Reyes regarding the possibility of filing restrictions. 

In Reyes v. Unknown Agent (Badge 101), Nos. 10-2025, 10-2026, 10-2027, 2010 WL 

3010325 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2010) (unpublished), we considered three of Mr. Reyes’ 

appeals together. The district courts had dismissed two of the underlying civil rights 

 1 Lest there be confusion, we note that, according to the complaint in this action, 

Mr. Reyes’ father, whose name is also Pablo Reyes, passed away on December 3, 2014, 

prior to the filing of the complaint.

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 2 
3

complaints as frivolous—one of which attempted to assert criminal charges against state 

officials—and concluded that there was no federal court jurisdiction over the third. The 

district courts had also warned Mr. Reyes that if he continued to file frivolous civil rights 

actions, he may be subject to sanctions and/or filing restrictions in the district court. We 

agreed that the two complaints were frivolous and that district court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider the third. Id. at **1-2. In addition, we warned Mr. Reyes that “future frivolous 

filings and appeals may subject him to sanctions and/or filing restrictions in this court.” 

Id. at **2.

Shortly thereafter, we dismissed two more appeals by Mr. Reyes as frivolous 

because they lacked any arguable basis in law or fact, see Reyes v. New Mexico, No. 10-

2142, 2011 WL 286300 (10th Cir. Jan. 31. 2011) (unpublished) and Reyes v. Centr. New 

Mexico Cmty. Coll., No. 10-2152, 2011 WL 286361 (10th Cir. Jan. 31. 2011)

(unpublished), and we denied Mr. Reyes’ request to proceed in forma pauperis in a third, 

for failure to demonstrate the existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on appeal, 

see Firewood v. New Mexico’s Bernalillo Cnty. Metro. Det. Ctr., No. 14-2108, 583 F. 

App’x 875, 876 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished).

Notably, in Reyes v. New Mexico, the district court had imposed filing restrictions 

on Mr. Reyes’ ability to file civil actions pro se, and in Firewood v. New Mexico’s 

Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, the district court had expanded those 

restrictions to removed cases, but Mr. Reyes did not challenge either of those restrictions 

on appeal. Reyes, 2011 WL 286300 at **1 n.2 (noting Reyes had not raised any appellate 

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 3 
4

challenge to the imposition of filing restrictions); Firewood, 583 F. App’x at 876 

(deeming issues waived).

Apart from filing frivolous claims and appeals, Mr. Reyes’ incoherent and 

unintelligible filings have hindered this court’s ability to conduct meaningful appellate 

review. See Firewood, 583 F. App’x at 876 (finding Mr. Reyes’ appellate brief, like his 

amended complaint, incoherent). In Firewood, this court was scarcely able to identify—

much less evaluate—his arguments on appeal, which included incomprehensible 

complaints of an “association-in-fact RICO enterprise,” leading the court to deem his 

issues on appeal waived. Id. 

Here, Mr. Reyes seeks to challenge, via an improper interlocutory appeal, an order 

striking documents based on filing restrictions that he never challenged on appeal. 

Moreover, a review of the complaint reveals that Mr. Reyes is, again, attempting to assert 

criminal charges in a civil suit and complaining of an “existing-in-fact-association RICO 

enterprise,” allegations that have previously been dismissed as frivolous. The elevenpage notice of appeal that led to the opening of this appeal includes multiple pages of 

unintelligible scrawlings, which appear to relate to unpaid mortgage and property taxes,

and Mr. Reyes again asserts that “all parties [are] entitled to notice of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) 

acquiring an itnrest [sic] and control of the exiting-in-fact-association-RICO enterprise.” 

In short, Mr. Reyes continues to abuse the judicial process with frivolous and incoherent 

filings. He must stop.

“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 

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 4 
5

malicious.” Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) 

(internal quotations omitted). We have inherent authority “to regulate the activities of 

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate 

circumstances.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989).

Thus, subject to the opportunity for Mr. Reyes to file written objections that we 

outline below, we propose to enjoin Mr. Reyes from proceeding as an appellant in this 

court without the representation of a licensed attorney admitted to practice in this court,

unless he first obtains permission to proceed pro se. To do so, Mr. Reyes must take the 

following steps:

1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file an appeal pro se

and setting forth:

a. a list of all appeals or original proceedings he has filed with this court, whether 

currently pending or previously filed, including the name, number, and citation 

(if applicable) of each case, and the current status or disposition of each appeal 

or original proceeding; and 

b. a list apprising this court of all outstanding injunctions or orders limiting his 

access to any federal court, including orders or injunctions requiring him either 

to be represented by an attorney or to seek leave to proceed pro se, which shall 

include the name, number, and citation (if applicable), of all such orders or 

injunctions; and

2. File with the clerk of this court a notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, reciting 

the issues he seeks to present, including a particularized description of the order or 

ruling being challenged and a short statement of the legal basis asserted for the 

challenge. The affidavit also must certify, to the best of his knowledge, that the 

legal arguments advanced are not frivolous or made in bad faith; that they do not 

duplicate arguments previously raised and rejected in a prior case; that the 

arguments are warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the 

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law; that the appeal is not being 

filed for any improper purpose; and that he will comply with all federal appellate 

rules and local rules of this court.

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 5 
6

These documents shall be submitted to the clerk of this court, who will review 

them for compliance with the above requirements. The clerk will dismiss the appeal for 

failure to prosecute if Mr. Reyes does not submit a fully compliant petition. See 10th Cir. 

R 42.1. If Mr. Reyes follows these procedures and submits a fully compliant petition, the 

clerk will forward the documents to the Chief Judge or her designee for review to 

determine whether to permit the pro se appeal. Without the approval of the Chief Judge 

or her designee, the appeal will be dismissed. If the Chief Judge or her designee 

approves the documents submitted, the clerk shall file an order to that effect. The appeal 

shall then proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this 

court’s local rules of practice.

Mr. Reyes shall have ten days from the date of this order to file written 

objections, limited to ten pages, to these proposed restrictions. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 

354. If no objections are filed, or the court does not find the objections persuasive, the 

restrictions shall take effect twenty days from the date of this order. The restrictions will 

apply to any appeal filed by Mr. Reyes with this court after that time.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-2107 Document: 01019469561 Date Filed: 08/03/2015 Page: 6