Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06273/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Absentee Shawnee Tribe Housing Authority
Appellee
Robert Dale McKinney
Appellant

Document Text:

,. ' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT DALE MCKINNEY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

FILED 

United St.4tct Ge 1r1, of. Appeals 

'1"'.'""'"\.- ,._!-,_.,,1Jt 

FEBO 7 1991 

"i.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6273 

ABSENTEE SHAWNEE TRIBE 

HOUSING AUTHORITY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-971-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner-appellant Robert Dale McKinney, a state prisoner, 

appeals prose from the dismissal of his 28 u.s.c. § 2254 habeas 

corpus action and from the district court's order restricting him 

from filing future actions. 

Petitioner sought to attack collaterally a judgment of the 

Absentee Shawnee Tribal Court awarding repossession of property 

and $276. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction 

* 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. 

** 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. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 90-6273 Document: 010110098480 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 1 
• 

under either§ 2254 or the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 

§ 1302, to adjudicate an Indian civil court judgment and dismissed 

the action with prejudice. McKinney v. Absentee Shawnee Tribe 

Housing Authority, No. CIV-90-971-P, unpub. order at 3-4 (June 29, 

1990). The court also found that to the extent petitioner was 

challenging the conditions of his confinement, he had failed to 

exhaust state remedies. Further, noting that petitioner 

previously had filed four frivolous habeas actions, the district 

court suggested several restrictions on his future actions. Id. 

at 5. Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the district 

court's suggested order. Subsequently, the court entered the 

following order: 

[B]efore the Petitioner is permitted to file future 

actions without exhausting state remedies, including 

challenges to the conviction ... 1. He must clearly 

demonstrate in the in forma pauperis affidavit that any 

new actions is commenced in good faith and is not 

repetitive, harassing, or frivolous. 2. He must include 

in every initial pleading a list of previous actions 

filed and certify that the claims advanced have never 

been raised before. 3. He is precluded from filing any 

further in forma pauperis habeas actions challenging the 

conviction in CRF 88-21 until he has exhausted his state 

court remedies. 

McKinney v. Absentee Shawnee Tribe Housing Authority, No. CIV-90-

971-P, unpub. order at 2 (W.D. Okla. July 31, 1990). 

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal 

according petitioner's prose pleadings the liberal construction 

required under Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). 

Although litigiousness will not alone support a restriction upon 

future filing, In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982), 

district courts are empowered under 28 u.s.c. § 1651(a) to enjoin 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6273 Document: 010110098480 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 2 
litigants who abuse the court system from filing future actions, 

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

district court set forth in detail petitioner's history of 

frivolous filings. See id. at 353 (injunctions on future filings 

appropriate where litigants' abusive history is properly set 

forth). Moreover, the district court's restrictions were 

"carefully tailored" to address the particular abuses perpetrated 

by petitioner. See Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 903 (10th 

Cir. 1986). Finally, petitioner received notice and an 

opportunity to respond in opposition before the court's order was 

promulgated. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 354. We therefore conclude 

that the district court did not violate petitioner's right of 

access to the courts when it restricted him from filing additional 

frivolous and malicious actions. 

To appeal the dismissal of his§ 2254 action, Fed. R. App. P. 

22(b) requires that petitioner obtain from the district court 

either a certificate of probable cause or a statement as to why 

such a certificate should not issue; he obtained neither. 

However, in view of the following determination, we will treat 

petitioner's notice of appeal as an application for a certificate 

of probable cause. See Ramsey v. Hand, 309 F.2d 947, 948 (10th 

Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 940 (1963); Evens v. Mccotter, 

805 F.2d 1210, 1214 (5th Cir. 1986); 10th Cir. R. 22.1. The 

district court unquestionably lacked jurisdiction under either 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 or 25 u.s.c. § 1302 to adjudicate petitioner's 

habeas petition. Petitioner therefore failed to advance a 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6273 Document: 010110098480 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 3 
substantial showing of the denial of a federal right entitling him 

to a certificate of probable cause to prosecute this appeal. See 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983). 

Petitioner's motion for leave to pr~ceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis is GRANTED. The district court's order restricting 

petitioner from filing future actions is a AFFIRMED. Petitioner's 

request for a certificate of probable cause is DENIED and the 

remainder of his habeas action is DISMISSED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6273 Document: 010110098480 Date Filed: 02/07/1991 Page: 4