Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01107/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald B. Rice
Appellee
Ronald Schroeder
Appellant

Document Text:

FI L~ 0Hppc:1.b 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL§nited sre~ Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RONALD SCHROEDER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DONALD B. RICE, Secretary, 

Department of the Air Force, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP O 4 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1107 

(D.C. No. 90-F-2212) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The plaintiff-appellant, Ronald R. Schroeder, alleges that 

the United States Air Force ("USAF") refused to hire him in 

violation of 42 u.s.c. § 2000e-16. The district court dismissed 

his complaint on res judicata grounds. This suit. constitutes the 

fourth action filed by the plaintiff based upon the alleged 

violation of section 2000e-16 by the USAF. The first suit was 

* 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: 91-1107 Document: 010110089481 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 1 
dismissed for failure to exhaust, and the next two were dismissed 

under the doctrine of res judicata. Although the second suit may 

have been improperly dismissed on res judicata grounds it 

nonetheless constitutes a final decision as to this dispute. 1 The 

third suit as well as this, the fourth suit, were properly 

dismissed on res judicata grounds. Therefore, we AFFIRM the 

district court's dismissal for the reasons stated by the lower 

court. 2 

Because this case represents the fourth time the appellant 

has filed a discrimination suit arising out of the same 

transaction, the district court set up an elaborate procedure to 

screen out any such repetitive filings instituted by the 

appellant. We likewise AFFIRM the district court's decision to 

protect itself against future frivolous filings by the appellant. 

See Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Finally, the appellant claims that the district court erred 

in dismissing the instant complaint before the United States filed 

an answer. This claim is entirely without merit. The district 

court is entitled to dismiss a complaint as being frivolous on its 

own motion. See McKinney v. State of Oklahoma, Dep't. of Human 

1 According to the record, the plaintiff never appealed the 

district court's decision to dismiss his claim on· res judicata 

grounds in the second suit he filed following the initial 

dismissal on exhaustion grounds. 

2 Appellant asserts that he has not previously raised a claim of 

discrimination based upon the April 2, 1986 employment opportunity 

opening for Claims Examiner. In this regard appellant is 

mistaken. That claim was raised in Count I of appellant's case of 

Schroeder v. Doe, et al., No. 89-F-2138 (D. Colo. Dec. 13, 1989, 

aff'd. No. 90-1004 (10th Cir., June 15, 1990)), and was rejected. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1107 Document: 010110089481 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 2 
Services, 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, there is 

no requirement that the defendant file a brief in its defense. 

In all respects, the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1107 Document: 010110089481 Date Filed: 09/04/1991 Page: 3