* This order is not binding precedent, except underthe doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders; nevertheless, an order may be c ited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate reco rd, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered su bmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 14, 2005

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

NASRULLA KHAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-4082

v. (D. of Utah) GLENN J. MECHAM, ROCKY J. FLUHART, JON GREINER, A. K. GREENWOOD, OGDEN CITY COUNCIL, OGDEN CITY CORPORATION, RALPH W. MITCHELL, GLEN V. HOLLEY, KENNETH J. ALFORD, GARTH B. DAY, RICK J. MAYER, JESSE M. GARCIA, and ADELE SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. 00-CV-114-DB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **-2-

Plaintiff-Appellant Nasrulla Khan appeals the denia l of a motion for contempt against defendants, who are various offici als for the City of Ogden, Utah. Khan argues the defendants failed to reimburse him for $98 in service of process fees that arose from the dismissal of his c ivil rights case in 2001. I. Background and Legal Issues Mr. Khan is a frequent filer in this court. This c ase represents his sixth appeal regarding allegations that Ogden city offici als failed to investigate his claims that he was the victim of harassing telephon e calls and stalking. In Khan’s most recent appeal, a panel of this Court sua sponte issued an order barring him from filing another appeal on the same subject matt er. Khan v. Mecham , 80 Fed. Appx. 50, 52 (10th Cir. 2003) (“ Khan III ”). In that order, we warned Khan that he would be subject to sanctions in the future shou ld he file yet another appeal to the Tenth Circuit regarding this same subject matte r. Id; see also Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1469 (10th Cir. 1990) (noting this court has the power “to impose sanctions such as costs, attorneys fees and double costs for the filing of frivolous appeals, Fed. R. App. P. 38, and the inhe rent power to impose sanctions that are necessary to regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency, and . . . to deter frivolous filings.”) The original complaint Khan filed with respect to t he current subject matter was dismissed on September 12, 2001. Prior to dism issal, the district court-3-

awarded Khan $98.00 in service costs. Khan never s ought payment of the $98.00 nor did he reduce the court’s order to judgment. F ollowing an unsuccessful appeal to this court and a denial of his petition f or writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, Khan filed a motion seeking payment of the $98.00 service costs along with $5,000 in punitive damages. City offici als paid the $98.00, which they state was “apparently forgotten during the appeals, ” but Khan pressed onward with his motion for sanctions. In an order adoptin g the reasoning articulated in the defendants’ brief, the district court denied Kh an’s motion for contempt. We affirm the district court’s decision for two rea sons. First, district courts have broad discretion to decide whether to impose s anctions. See United States v. Gonzales , 164 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999). Khan appar ently did nothing to pursue collection of his $98.00 for a number of yea rs, and once asked, the City of Ogden paid him immediately. Accordingly, we believ e the district court was well within its discretion to deny sanctions. Second, and more importantly, in Khan III, we barred Khan from filing an appeal in this court regarding the “same subject ma tter as Khan I and Khan II.” He is in direct violation of that order, and this a lone would be reason to dismiss his appeal. II. Conclusion and Sanction-4-

We affirm the district court’s order, and deny Khan ’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition, we conclude that Khan ’s appeal in this matter is in direct violation of the court’s 2003 order in Khan III regarding additional appeals arising from the 2001 complaint. Accordingly, we o rder a sanction in the amount of $98, to be paid to defendants within thirty days of the filing of this order and judgment. Entered for the Court Per Curiam