Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06319/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosco Campbell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

., 

f ILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unitt!d States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AP 19 1990 

:ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

} 

} 

v. No. 89-6319 

ROSCO CAMPBELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D. C. No. CIV-87-2556-R} 

(W.D. Okla.} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, 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(1}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

This appeal arises from the efforts of the Internal Revenue 

Service to collect taxes owed by the appellant, Mr. Campbell. 

* 

be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6319 Document: 01019971520 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 1 
We will summarize the facts generally by stating that Mr. 

Campbell failed to file income tax returns for three years, 1976, 

1977, and 1978. After many efforts to collect the unpaid taxes, 

the IRS filed this suit to reduce to judgment the outstanding 

assessments. 

Mr. Campbell filed a counterclaim seeking damages for alleged 

constitutional and common-law torts purportedly committed by IRS 

employees while 

the taxes owed by 

attempting to perform their duties in collecting 

Mr. Campbell. The United States moved to 

dismiss the counterclaim and filed a motion for summary judgment. 

The district court subsequently dismissed Mr. Campbell's 

counterclaim and granted the United States summary judgment upon 

its claim against Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell now appeals these 

decisions. 

Mr. Campbell appeals prose and has filed a brief that is all 

but incomprehensible. As his first issue, Mr. Campbell asserts 

that he "did make an Income Tax Return or Statement and asked for 

clarification on the definition of income, jurisdiction, [and] 

subpoena witness status " Appellant's Opening Brief at 2. As 

his second issue, Mr. Campbell asserts "[t]he record is not 

complete for exact examination, but did the I.R.S. follow all 

Procedures and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure .•• ?" Id. 

Appended to Mr. Campbell's brief are twenty-one 

"Propositions,'' including, by way of illustration: 

-2-

pages of 

"The mental 

Appellate Case: 89-6319 Document: 01019971520 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 2 
/ 

process of making choices is a property right," ''The process by 

which law is .found is a property right," and ''Knowing of 

Congresses [sic] intentions is a property right." Addendum to 

Appellant's Opening Brief at 2, 4, 13. 

Mr. Campbell requests this court to "[d]etermine if the 

I.R.S. followed all the statutes, procedures, and Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure," and he further asks us to "[d]etermine if 

appellant followed all the legal options available." Appellant's 

Opening Brief at 3. 

Having reviewed the record on appeal, we feel compelled to 

observe that Mr. Campbell's brief and the attached propositions do 

not seem to bear any relationship to this lawsuit. Interestingly, 

this opinion was also expressed by the district court in an order 

dismissing six various pleadings filed by Mr. Campbell. Like the 

district court, we find it difficult to respond to the 

incomprehensible. 

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal together with 

Mr. Campbell's brief and the attached propositions. We find no 

error in the judgment of the district court, and we therefore 

affirm the decisions of the district court. 

The United States, in its brief to this court, asks for an 

award of damages for the abuse of the judicial process. It 

asserts that we should impose appropriate sanctions against Mr. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6319 Document: 01019971520 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 3 
Campbell for maintaining this frivolous appeal. It suggests the 

sum of $1,500 in lieu of costs and attorney fees. Appellee's 

Brief at 26 n.7. 

This court understands the emotions generated with a losing 

litigant and the inherent needs of an individual to express 

himself when he believes the court system has treated him 

unfairly. This court also recognizes that when an appellant 

files a brief that fails to point specifically to an error of law 

or fact, it causes an appellee to expend considerable resources in 

defending the actions of the trial court. We note that appellee 

filed a thorough brief, as required by all applicable rules of 

appellate procedure. 

This court does provide prose litigants with latitude. Had 

appellant's brief been filed by counsel, it would undoubtedly have 

been dismissed for failure to comply with applicable rules, and 

this appeal would not have been decided upon the merits. The fact 

that this court may be forgiving of prose litigants does not mean 

it should not consider sanctions when a frivolous appeal causes 

the appellee to expend its resources. 

It is clear to this court that Mr. Campbell should have known 

that his claim is frivolous, and it is likewise clear to this 

court that Mr. Campbell, rather than his adversary, should pay the 

costs of his self-indulgent litigation. When one wishes to use 

the court system to indulge his beliefs and opinions, he or she 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6319 Document: 01019971520 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 4 
should be prepared to adhere at least generally to the established 

rules. Failing to do so should result in the payment of his 

adversary's costs. 

Mr. Campbell has received notice of appellee's request for 

sanctions in the amount of $1,500 and has failed to respond either 

as to his liability for the sanctions or as to the amount of the 

sanctions. This court will therefore impose sanctions upon Mr. 

Campbell as requested by appellee. Such an award will undoubtedly 

not cover all the costs attending to this appeal, but hopefully it 

will recompense appellee for the direct costs of defending the 

appeal. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-6319 Document: 01019971520 Date Filed: 04/19/1990 Page: 5