Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01304/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01304-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado
Appellee
Mahinder S. Uberoi
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Cb::u:c 

MAY 2 5 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) Nos. 89-1117, 89-1304, 89-1337 

v. 

MAHINDER S. UBEROI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

)_ ( D. C. No. 8 8-F-13 2 3) 

) (D. Colorado) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant-appellant Mahinder S. Uberoi appeals a district 

court order permanently enjoining him from filing prose lawsuits 

in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. 

I. 

Mahinder S. Uberoi is a tenured professor at the University 

of Colorado at Boulder who has filed six actions in Colorado state 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 1 
courts and two in the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado. Plaintiff-appellee Board of Regents of the 

University of Colorado (the University) initiated this action to 

enjoin Professor Uberoi from filing prose lawsuits. Professor 

Uberoi filed a number of counterclaims against the University. 

On March 24, 1989, the district court entered a preliminary 

injunction prohibiting Professor Uberoi from filing or appearing 

in any civil action in the District of Colorado in which he is the 

proponent of a claim without representation by a licensed 

attorney. In its order, the court required that Professor Uberoi 

proceed through counsel on his counterclaims. Because Professor 

Uberoi did not meet the court's condition that counsel be retained 

within thirty days, his counterclaims were dismissed on June 16, 

1989. 

A hearing was held on August 21, 1989, on the merits of the 

University's motion for permanent injunction. 

and knowledge of the hearing date, Professor 

Despite full notice 

Uberoi failed to 

appear, and no witnesses appeared on his behalf. On September 25, 

1989, the district court granted a permanent 

Professor Uberoi from filing lawsuits prose. 

injunction barring 

The district court 

reviewed the previous case filings involving Professor Uberoi and 

concluded that "[t]o ensure the integrity of the judicial process, 

the court must impose some limitations on Professor Uberoi's 

ability to file unwarranted lawsuits." The court explained how 

Professor Uberoi disregards the procedures of courts in which he 

appears by filing actions and motions for vexatious and harassing 

purposes with total disregard for legal merits. The district 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 2 
court noted how Professor Uberoi has a pattern of seeking 

disqualification of judicial officers who rule against him. The 

district court cited several instances where Professor Uberoi 

misled the court or missed deadlines. Finally, the court observed 

how Professor Uberoi continuously disregards and refuses to follow 

standard methods of appeal, instead filing duplicative lawsuits or 

commencing suits against 

We agree -~ith the -district 

the judges who have ruled against him. 

court's conclusions and affirm the 

order enjoining Professor Uberoi from proceeding prose as a 

proponent of any civil claim. 

II. 

Professor Uberoi challenges the district court's jurisdiction 

because the University's complaint was based in part on 

allegations of misconduct in state courts. However, the district 

court merely accepted and reviewed pleadings from state court 

actions and other federal suits as evidence on the issue of 

Professor Uberoi's competency in representing himself in legal 

proceedings. 

A district court has power under 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a) to 

enjoin litigants who abuse the court system by harassing their 

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

In Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902-03 (10th Cir. 1986), 

this court affirmed clearly tailored preconditions imposed upon a 

vexatious litigant. "Even onerous conditions'' may be imposed so 

long as they are designed to assist the district court in curbing 

the particular abusive behavior. However, they cannot be so 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 3 
burdensome as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts. 

Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352. 

In this case, the district court enjoined Professor Uberoi 

from proceeding without the representation of an attorney. This 

restriction was carefully tailored to abate Professor Uberoi's 

repeated pro se filing of unwarranted lawsuits and motions. 

Recognizing that repeated sanctions imposed against Professor 

Uberoi have never proven ____ to be._ ... effective , .... the district court 

concluded that preventative measures were necessary due to his 

flagrant and repeated abuse of the judicial process. While 

litigiousness alone will not support an injunction restricting 

filing activities, injunctions are proper where the litigant's 

abusive and lengthy history is properly set forth. Id. at 353. 

Furthermore, this restriction is different from the 

requirement imposed in Tripati v. Beaman, where this court 

remanded part of the order imposing restrictions on a plaintiff's 

future filings because there were no guidelines as to what 

plaintiff must do to obtain the court's permission to file an 

action. 878 F.2d at 354. Here, the district court clearly stated 

that Professor Uberoi may proceed with his claims if he is 

represented by an attorney licensed to practice in the State of 

Colorado and admitted to practice in the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado. 

The right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor 

unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access tothe courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous. Tripati, 878 

F.2d at 351 (citing In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 785 (D.C. Cir. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 4 
1981), Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 450 U.S. 985 ( 1981)). "No one, rich or poor, is entitled 

to abuse the judicial process." Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353. In 

this case, the condition that Professor Uberoi must be represented 

by counsel does not deny his access to the courts because he has 

the means to obtain representation for meritorious claims. 

For the same reasons, we affirm the district court's 

dismissal .. of Professor Uberoi~s counterclaims after he failed to 

retain an attorney as ordered by the court on March 24, 1989. The 

district court was exercising its authority to protect the 

University from harassing litigation and to protect its own 

calendar from further frivolous and time-consuming claims. 

We also reject Professor Uberoi's contention that the 

University is without standing to bring this action. The 

University has met its burden of showing "a history of litigation 

entailing ' vexation, harassment and needless expense to [other 

parties]' and an unnecessary burden on the courts and their 

supporting personnel.'" In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d 

Cir. 1984) (quoting In re Hartford Textile Corp., 681 F.2d 895, 

897 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206 (1983)). 

III. 

We reject Professor Uberoi's contention that under 28 u.s.c. 

§ 455, Chief Judge Finesilver is disqualified from hearing the 

University's injunctive request. The factual grou-nd for his 

request is that the University presented Judge Finesilver with an 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 5 
honorary doctorate during the pendency of this case. 1 The 

district court rejected Professor Uberoi's motion for recusal, 

noting the offer and acceptance of the honorary degree occurred 

before the University's injunctive action was filed. In addition, 

the court concluded Professor Uberoi's status as a faculty member 

negated any contentions that the court would be biased in favor of 

other University officials any more so than in favor of Dr. Uberoi 

as a University professor. 

Because the decision to recuse is within the sound discretion 

of the district judge, we review denial of recusal for abuse of 

that discretion. Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir. 

1987). Under 28 u.s.c. § 455, the test is whether a reasonable 

person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about 

the judge's impartiality. Id. at 939. Without more, merely having 

attended or graduated from a school, which is a party, is not a 

reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality. Brody v. 

President & Fellows of Harvard College, 664 F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir. 

1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027 (1982); see also Easley v. 

Michigan Board of Regents, 853 F.2d 1351 (6th Cir. 1988). These 

courts reasoned that "[a]ll judges come to the bench with a 

background of experiences, associations, and viewpoints. This 

background alone is seldom sufficient in itself to provide a 

reasonable basis for appeal." Easley, 853 F.2d at 1356. 

1Professor Uberoi also claims Judge Finesilver is disqualified in 

this matter because fellow District- Judge Carrigan was a defendant 

in one of the actions on which the University's injunctive 

complaint is based. However, this request for injunctive relief 

is a separate matter which does not require relitigation of that 

case. Therefore, Judge Finesilver's impartiality is not at issue, 

and disqualification on this ground is not required. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 6 
. . 

Similarly, the mere association of a judge with a party without 

indication the judge stands to obtain financial or other gain from 

a particular outcome may be insufficient to mandate 

disqualification. Brody, 664 F.2d at 11. When a judge is awarded 

an honorary degree from a school which is a party in current 

proceedings, there may be a stronger case for recusal. However, 

in this case, the offer and acceptance of the honorary degree 

occurred befo~e the - .university filed this - injunctive action. 

Therefore, the honorary degree was not an interest which could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 

This case differs from Liljeberg v. Health Services 

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), where the Supreme Court 

affirmed the disqualification of a trial judge who was a trustee 

of a university which had a substantial financial interest in the 

subject matter before the trial judge. In this case, Judge 

Finesilver is not serving as a trustee and has no financial 

interest at stake in these proceedings. 

We conclude that 

Uberoi are not properly 

erroneously claims the 

IV. 

many of the issues appealed by Professor 

before this court. Professor Uberoi 

district court reviewed and relitigated 

several of his previous case filings in the permanent injunction 

trial. Thus, Professor Uberoi seeks review of several issues 

-which were raised in 82-LW-806 and the appeals filed from that 

action. He also raises the issue of the propriety of the transfer 

of 82-LW-806 to Judge West. Judge West dismissed 82-LW-806 for 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 7 
. . 

Professor Uberoi's failure to comply with the court's discovery 

orders. This court affirms both the dismissal and award of 

attorneys fees against Professor Uberoi. Uberoi v., University of 

Colorado, No. 86-2186, slip. op. (10th Cir. July 8, 1987} 

(dismissal}; Uberoi v. University of Colorado, No. 87-2219, slip. 

op. (10th Cir. July 8, 1988) (attorneys fees}. Issues arising out 

of 82-LW-806 were decided in those actions and are not properly 

before this court. All other matters pending in this case not 

specifically resolved are now moot. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 'The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-1304 Document: 01019970543 Date Filed: 05/25/1990 Page: 8