Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02002/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas V. Fleming
Appellant
Michael Francke
Appellee
Dan Moriarty
Appellee
Helen Tafoya
Appellee
Jan Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

l 

• . FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Umted States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 21 1990 

NICHOLAS V. FLEMING ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

v. 

DAN MORIARTY; HELEN TAFOYA; 

JAN THOMAS, in his individual 

capacity Deputy Warden, and 

MICHAEL FRANCKE, in his 

official capacity, Secretary 

of Corrections, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants .• ) 

AOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2002 

(D.C. No . 86-197-SC) 

(D. N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff-appellant Nicholas Fleming sued the defendants for 

alleged violations of his civil rights. When they failed to 

*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: 90-2002 Document: 010110036893 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 1 
• 

respond promptly, default was entered against them. Eventually, 

they answered and moved to set aside the entries of default. 

Meanwhile, another judge in the same district issued an order 

against Fleming in the case of Fleming v. Mccotter, No. CIV 89-

0392-JB (D.N.M. June 8, 1989), aff'd, No. 89-2163 (10th Cir. May 

16, 1990), finding him to be an abusive litigant and ordering him 

to pay in full all filing fees in all of his pending cases within 

fifteen days, or those cases would be dismissed. Twenty-one days 

later, the judge in this case took judicial notice of the Mccotter 

order and the fact that Fleming had not paid the filing fees in 

this matter, and sua sponte dismissed the complaint with 

prejudice. 

Fleming contends that the dismissal of the case after the 

entry of default violated due process. He was not deprived of 

anything without due process of law. First of all, entry of 

default is an interlocutory act which does not automatically 

entitle the plaintiff to a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a), (b); Phillips v. Weiner, 103 F.R.D. 177, 179 (D. Me. 1984) 

(quoting 10 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 2692, at 465 (2d ed. 1983)). Secondly, Fleming had 

full notice of the contents of the Mccotter order. 

He also argues that Rule 20l(e) of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence entitled him to a subsequent hearing on the propriety of 

taking judicial notice of the order. This argument fails because 

Rule 201 only governs the judicial noticing of adjudicative facts. 

District court judges may notice the orders of other judges of the 

same court, but such notice is not governed by Rule 201. See 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2002 Document: 010110036893 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 2 
• 

f 

generally 10 J. Moore & H. Bendix, Moore's Federal Practice 

S 201.02[1], at II-19 to -21 (1988). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2002 Document: 010110036893 Date Filed: 06/21/1990 Page: 3