Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07092/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Cody
Appellee
James Naum
Appellant

Document Text:

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 141990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JAMES NAUM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

MICHAEL CODY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 89-7092 

(D. C. No. 352-M) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, 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 

Mr. Naum appeals an order of the district court denying him 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a district court action. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-7092 Document: 010110051279 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
I 

Mr. Naum is an inmate of the Oklahoma Penitentiary. He may 

fairly be described as litigious. On March 24, 1987, the district 

judge consolidated twenty-three separate suits filed by Mr. Naum 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed these actions. In this 

same order, the district court restricted Mr. Naum's ability to 

file future suits in forma pauperis. The district court carefully 

examined all thirty-three suits filed by Mr. Naum (not just the 

twenty-three that were dismissed) and concluded that Mr. Naum had 

abused court process by the filing of successive, repetitive and 

frivolous complaints. 

complaints filed 

The district court then required all future 

by Mr. Naum to be verified; to include 

information on previous cases involving the same, similar or 

related causes of action; and required Mr. Naum to personally send 

a copy of all subsequent complaints and pleadings to each named 

defendant or defendant's counsel. 

On September 22, 1989, Mr. Naum filed a motion to file a 

complaint in forma pauperis against Michael Cody. The complaint, 

filed prose, was allegedly founded on 42 u.s.c. § 1983. It was a 

suit against the warden, 

requesting damages. The 

acting in his official 

complaint did not comply 

capacity, 

with the 

restrictions placed upon Mr. Naum's in forma pauperis litigation 

by the court in its order of March 24, 1987. The district court, 

by minute order, denied Mr. Naum leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis for the reason that he had failed to comply with the 

requirements of the district court's order of March 24, 1987. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7092 Document: 010110051279 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
f 

Mr. Naum has now requested this court to grant him leave to 

appeal in forma pauperis. This we decline to do. Mr. Naum can 

make no rational argument on the law or facts to overcome the 

decision of the district court. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 

(1989); Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1987). 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge -

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7092 Document: 010110051279 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3