F I LED U n ite dS ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

T e n th C irc u it N ovem ber 14,2006 E li s abet h A .Shu m aker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT KAY S I E VE RD I NG,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, and DAVI D S I E VE RD I NG; E D S I E VE RD I NG; T OM S I E VE RD I NG,

P l ai nti ffs, v. CO L OR ADO B AR AS S OC I AT I ON, and thei ri ns ur ance company( t rue n a me u n k n o wn ) ; CI T Y OF S T E AM BO AT S P RI NGS , CO , a mu n i c i p a l i t y ; AM E RI CA N B AR A SSO C I A T I O N , and thei ri ns ur ance co m p an y(true n am e u n k n o w n ); J A N E B E N N E T T , pr i vat e ci t i zen act i ng i n cons pi r acyw i t h C i t ypol i cy ma k e r s ; KEV I N B ENN ETT, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity c o u n c i l me mb e r ; KEN BRE NNER, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s a C ity co u n cil m em b er; D A V ID B R O U G H A M , ind iv id u a llya n d in capa ci t yas appar entC i t yi ns ur ance agent( forC I R SA ) ; C I R SA , i ns ur ance a g e n tfo rt h e CI TY; I NSURANCE A G E N T , ot hert han B r ougham, and deci s i on m aker s forC I R SA ( t rue n a me u n k n o wn ) ; KAT HY C O N N E L L , i ndi vi dual l yand as N o. 06- 1038- 2-

em p loy ed as C ityco u n cil m em b er; D A V I S, G RA H A M & STU BB S, L L C; J AM E S E NGL E KE N, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity c o u n c i l me mb e r ; AR T F I E BI NG, in d iv id u a llya n d a s e m p lo y e d a s C ity a s s i s t a n tc h i e f

o f p o l i c e ; S ANDY FI E B I N G , i ndi vi dual l yand as t he C ityco d e e n fo rce m en t office r; D A N IE L F O O T E , ind iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c i t y a s a s s i s t a n tC i t y a t t o r n e y; J A M E S G A R R E C H T , i n capa ci t yas di s t r i ctcourtj udge ( fori nj unct i ve r el i ef onl ys i nce he i s i m m une fr om s ui tfo rda mage s ) ; J . D . H A Y S, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity d i r e c t o ro f

p u b l i c s a fe t y ; HA LL & E V A N S, L L C , and thei ri ns ur ance ; J AM ES “ S AND Y” HORNER, i ndi vi dual l yand as at t or neyw or ki ng fo r K lau z e r & T re m a in e a n d h is i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny ; PA U L H U G H ES, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity ma n a g e r ; KLA UZER & TREM AI NE, a l a w fi r m, a n d i n s u r a n c e ( t ru e n a me u n k n o wn ) ; RANDA LL KLAUZE R, i ndi vi dual l yand i n capa ci t yas an a t t o r n e y a n d h i s i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y; C H A R L E S L A N C E , i ndi vi dual l yand i n capa ci t yas form erdi s t r i ctat t orney a n d h i s i n s u r a n c e ; ANT HONY L E T T U N IC H , ind iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C itya tto rn e ya n d h is i ns ur a nc e ; PA U L R . M CL I M A N S, i nd i vidual l yand i n cap aci t yas a di s t r i ctat t or neyand hi s i ns ur ance co m p an y ; W E N D IE S C H U L E N B U R G , (a.k.a. R o o n ey ), in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity pl anni ng s ervi ces di r ect orand her i n s u r a n c e ; M E L I NDA S HE RMAN,- 3-

fo r m e ra s s i s t a n tC i t y a t t o r n e y, i ndi vi dual l y , and i n capa ci t y , and t he i ri ns ur a nc e ; K ER RY ST. J A M ES, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s d e p u ty o r a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e ya n d h is i n s u r a n c e ; J AM ES B. F. OLI PHA NT, B ennett ’ s at t or neyand pur chas erof p l a i n t i ff ’ s h o me ; S UZ ANNE S C H L IC H T , ind iv id u a llya n d in capa ci t yas new s paperpubl i s herand h e ri n s u r a n c e ; S T E AM BO AT P I L OT & TODA Y NEW S P APE R, (W o rld w e st L im ited L iab ili ty Co mp a n y ) , a n d i n s u r a n c e ( t ru e n a me u n k n o wn ) ; ARI ANTHE S TE TT NER, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity c o u n c i l me mb e r ; P AUL S T RO NG, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s C ity counci l m emberand hi s i ns ur ance c o mpa n y ; RI CH AR D TR EM AI NE, i ndi vi dual l yand i n capa ci t yas an a t t o r n e y a n d h i s i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y; JA M E S W E B E R , ind iv id u a llya n d in capa ci t yas C i t ypubl i c w or ks di r ect or a nd hi s i ns ur a nc e c ompa ny ; P. EL I ZABE TH WI TT EM YER, in d iv id u a llya n d in c a p a c itya s d e p u ty di s t r i ctat t or ney , and heri ns ur ance ,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO ( D . C . N o. 02 - C V - 19 50 - EW N - O ES)A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

- 4- S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * K aySi ever di ng, Pr o Se. Pat r i ci a J . L ar s on, Seni orA s s oci at e G ener al C ouns el , A m er i can BarA s s oci at i on, C hi cago, I l l i noi s , forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee A m er i can BarA s s oci at i on. T h o m as B . K ell ey , C h ri stop h er P . B ea ll , F ae g re & B en so n , L L P , D en v er, C o lorad o , Jo h n M . P alm eri, B rettN o rm an H u ff, W h it e a n d S teele, P.C . , D en v er, C ol or ado, M i chae l T . M cC onnel l , T r aci L . V an Pel t , R obertW . St ei nm et z, M cC o n n ell , S iderius, F lei sch n er, H o u g h tal ing & C raigm il e, L L C , D en v er, C ol or ado, D avi d R . B r ougham, H al l & E vans , D enver , C ol or ado, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B efor e BARRETT , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udge.

K ayS ieve rdin g , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er i m pos i ng fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons . W e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of fi l i ng re s tr ic tio n s , b u t w e c o n c lu d e th a t a p o rt io n o f th e o rd e r m u s t b e m o d ifie d . B ackgr ound M s . Si ever di ng, herhus band, and tw o s ons fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s t r i ct o f C o lo ra d o in O c to b e r 2 0 0 2 . T h e c o m p lain t w a s 1 0 6 p a g e s lo n g a n d se t fo rth- 5-

cl ai m s agai nstt hirt y -s i x indi vidual s or ent i t i es. T he u nd erl y i ng i ssue i n the case r el at ed t o t he al l eged vi ol at i on of the Si ever di ngs ’ r i ght s w i th r egar d t o zoni ng deci s i ons t hataffect ed them and t hei rform ernei ghbor s . D ur i ng the pende ncyof t he ca s e, t he Si ever di ngs fi l ed more than 100 mot i ons . I n O ct ober2003, the m agi s t r at e j udge as s i gned t o t he ca s e i s s ued a s i xty - one page r ecomm endat i on t hatt he ca s e be di s m i s s ed w i t h pr ej udi ce; thatthe Si ever di ngs be r equi r ed t o pay defe ndant s ’ cos t s and fe es ; and thattheybe enj oi ned fr om comm enci ng fur ther l i t i gat i on i n t he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado r egar di ng thes e eve nt s w i thoutfi r s tobt ai ni ng couns el . T he di s t r i ctcourtacc ept ed and a dopt ed the r ecomm endat i ons i n an or der ent er ed on M ar ch 19, 2004, butexpande d on the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm ended fili n g re stric tio n s b ye njo in in g th e S iev e rd in g s f ro m fili n g law su its re late d to th is s u bje c t m a tte r i n th e D is tr ic t o f C o lo ra d o o r a n yo th e r c o u rt . T h e S ieve rdin g s filed th ree ap p ea ls from the M arc h 2 0 0 4 o rde r i n this co u rt a n d th e yw e re c o n so lid a ted . T h e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r a d o p tin g th e m a g istra te j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on w as s um m ar i l yaff i r m ed on appe al . W e obs erved that “appe l l ant s di d notas s erterr orw i th the i m pos i t i on of fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons and, t her efor e, t hi s cour tw i l l enfor ce thos e r es tr i ct i ons . ” Si eve r di ng v. C ol o. B ar A ss’n , 1 2 6 F . A p p ’x 4 5 7 , 4 5 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In late 2 0 0 4 a n d 2 0 0 5 , the S iev e rd in g s c o n tin u e d fili n g a c tio n s re latin g to th e su bjec t m a tter o f

th e ir p re v io u s la w su it. T h e yfiled fiv e n e w c iv il ac tio n s in t he fe der al di s t r i ctcourt s i n M i nnes ot a, N or thern I l l i noi s , and the D i s tr i ctof- 6-

C ol um bi a; one new ci vi l act i on i n the s t at e courti n D enverC ounty , C ol or ado; and one a ppeal i n t he Ei ght h C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s . I n the s um m erof 2005, t he defendant s fi l ed a mot i on r eques t i ng a s how caus e or deras t o w hythe Si ever di ngs s houl d notbe s anct i oned forvi ol at i ng the fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons por t i on of the M ar ch 2004 or der . O n Sept ember2, the di s tr i ctcourthel d a hea r i ng and found the Si ever di ngs t o be i n cont empt of courtforvi ol at i ng the M ar ch 2004 or der . T he di s t r i ctcour tgave both of the Si ever di ngs the opt i on of di s m i s s i ng t he law su its th a t re m a in e d p e n d in g in th e D istric t o f C o lu m b ia a n d C o lo ra d o sta te cour torgoi ng t o j ai l . M s . Si ever di ng r efus ed t o di s m i s s the l aw s ui t s and w as sentt o jai l . M r. S i everdi ng w i t hd rew his nam e from the p end i ng cases. O n J anuary4, 2006, J udge N ot t i ngham hel d a s how caus e hea r i ng, and o rd e re d M s. S iev e rd in g to d ism iss th e re m a in in g law su its th a t h a d b e e n filed in vi ol at i on of the M ar ch 2004 or der . M s . Si ever di ng w as r el eas ed fr om cus t ody w ith th e c o n d itio n th a t s h e d is m is s a ll o f h e r r e m a in in g la w s u its b yJ a n u a ry 1 1 . A tt hathear i ng, J udge N ot t i ngham al s o ent er ed anotheror der , w hi ch pr ohi bi t ed M s. S i everdi ng from fi l i ng anyfurther l aw sui t s anyw here i n thi s coun tryun l ess s he i s r epr es ent ed bya l aw y erorunl es s the di s tr i ctcour ts peci fi cal l yappr oves her fi l i ng of a g i ven l aw sui t . T his order broaden ed the M arch 20 04 order because i tw as notl i m i t ed bys ubj ectm at t er . T he di s tr i ctcourtent er ed a w r i t t en or deron Jan u ary3 1 that m em o ri ali ze d the v erb al ord er f rom Jan u ary4 an d g av e su p p o rt forhi s fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons deci s i on. M s . Si ever di ng fi l ed a pe t i t i on form andamus- 7-

fr om t he J anuary4 or derand thi s courtcons trued i tas a not i ce of appea l fr om t he v erb al Jan u ary4 o rde r as m em o ri ali ze d in the Jan u ary3 1 o rde r. D i s cus s i on “[T] he r i ghtof ac ces s t o t he court s i s nei therabs ol ut e noruncondi t i onal and ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o the court s t o pr os ecut e an a ct i on t hati s fr i vol ous orm al i ci ous . ” Tri pat iv. B eam an , 8 7 8 F . 2 d 3 5 1 , 3 5 3 (10 th C ir . 1989) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( percur i am). Feder al cour t s have the i nher entpow er “t o r egul at e the ac t i vi t i es of abus i ve l i t i gant s byi m pos i ng car eful l yt ai l or ed r es t r i ct i ons undert he appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. at352 ( quot i ng C otnerv. Hopki ns , 7 9 5 F . 2 d 9 0 0 , 9 0 2 -03 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 )). W e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt t hatfi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons w er e appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. W e conc l ude, how ever , that th e re stric tio n s w e re n o t ca re f u llytailo re d a s re q u ire d b yo u r c a se law a n d th a t a p o rt io n o f

th e filin g re s tr ic tio n s o rd e r m u s t b e m o d ifie d . T h e su b sta n c e o f

th e fili n g re stric tio n sta tes : K aySi ever di ng and D avi d Si ever di ng ar e her eaf t erpr ohi bi t ed fr om c o m m e n c i n g a n y pro se l i t i gat i on i n anycour ti n the U ni t ed St at es on anys ubj ectm at t erunl es s theym eetthe r equi r ement s of Par agr aph 2 b e l o w. R . , V ol . I , D oc. 788 at7 ¶ 1. Par agr aph 2 expl ai ns thatthe Si ever di ngs m us ts eek a p p ro v a l f

ro m th e D istric t o f

C o lo ra d o b e fo re c o m m e n c in g a n yp ro se lit ig a tio n in a n yc o u rt in th e U n ite d S ta te s o n a n ys u bje c t m a tte r. Id . at¶ 2. T he or derdoes n o ta p p l y i f

t h e S i e v e r d i n g s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a l i c e n s e d a t t o rn e y. Id . a t ¶ 3 .- 8-

T hi s fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons or deri s unl i ke otherfi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons or der s that have be en r evi ew ed byt hi s courtbeca us e i text ends t o anycour ti n thi s countryas oppos ed t o bei ng l i m i t ed t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the courti s s ui ng the or der . T he o rde r th ere b yinclu d es e v erystat e c o u rt , ev eryfe d era l distri ct co u rtan d ev ery fe d e ra l co u rt o f

a p p e a l. A p p e llee s c ite to o n lyo n e c a se th a t in v o lv e d sim ilarly b ro a d filin g re s tr ic tio n s , Mar t i n- Trigona v. Lavi en , 7 3 7 F . 2 d 1 2 5 4 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), t o s uppor tt hei rar gum entt hatt he br eadth of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derw as a p p ro p ri a te . I n Mar t i n- Trigona, t he Second Ci r cui tw as r evi ew i ng an or deri m pos i ng re stric tio n s th a t enjo in e d th e fili n g o f a n ya c tio n in a n ysta te o r fe d e ra l co u rt in th e U n ited S tate s a risin g o u t o f p lain tiff ’s b a n k ru p tcy pr o c e e d in g s, u n les s c e rta in c o n d iti o n s w e re m e t. T h e o rd e r d id , h o w e v e r, in c lu d e a n e x c e p tio n fo r c e rta in typ e s o f filin g s , in c lu d in g filin g s in th e fe d e ra l a p p e lla te c o u rt s . See i d. at1259 ( “N ot hi ng i n t hi s or ders hal l be cons trued as deny i ng [pl ai nt i ff] acc es s t o the U ni t ed St at es C our t s of A ppeal s . ”) . T he Second Ci r cui tuphel d the port i on of the fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons or dert hatpr ohi bi t ed the pl ai nt i ff f r om fi l i ng an ac t i on i n any fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt in th e c o u n tr yw ith o u t p ri o r p e rm is s io n . See i d. a t 1 2 6 2 . T he courtdet erm i ned, how ever , thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed byext endi ng the fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons t o i ncl ude s t at e court s , al though the courtl efti nt actthe r equi r ementt hatM r . M art i n- T r i gona not i fythe s t at e court s r egar di ng hi s pr i or litig a tio n h is to ry. S e e id . a t 1 2 6 2 -6 3 .- 9-

W e di s agr ee w i t h t he Second Ci r cui t ’ s deci s i on t o uphol d the br oad fi l i ng re stric tio n lim iti n g a c c e ss to a n yfe d e ra l d istric t co u rt in th e c o u n trya n d w e w ill n o t u p h o ld su c h a b ro a d fili n g re stric tio n in th is c a se . W e th in k it i s a p p ro p ria te fort he D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado t o i m pos e fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons thati ncl ude otherfede r al di s t r i ctcourt s w i t hi n t he Tent h C i r cui t , butthati ti s notappr opr i at e t o ext end t hos e r es t r i ct i ons t o i ncl ude fe der al di s tr i ctcour t s out s i de of thi s C i r cui t . I ti s not re a so n a b le fo r a c o u rt in th is C irc u it t o sp e a k o n b e h a lf o f c o u rts in o th e r c irc u its i n t he countr y ; t hos e court s ar e capabl e of t aki ng appr opr i at e ac t i on on t hei row n. W e a g re e w ith th e S e c o n d C irc u it’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t itis n o t ap p ro p ria te fo r a fed era l distri ct co u rtto restri ct ac ce ss to the stat e c o u rt s. T h e d istri ct co u rt e rre d in th is c a se b yim p o sin g fili n g re stric tio n s lim iti n g a c c e ss to a n yc o u rt in t he countr y . Fi nal l y , w e not e thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s br oad or der , unl i ke the or der ati s s ue i n Mar t i n- Trigona , fai l s t o i ncl ude an e xcept i on forfi l i ngs i n the fe der al appel l at e court s . T hi s w as err or . I ti s unr eas onabl e forthe D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado to attem p t t o li m itac ce ss to this co u rto r an yo ther c o u rto f a p p ea l. W e a re c a p a b le o f

d e c id in g if

filin g re s tr ic tio n s a re a p p ro p ri a te in th is c o u rt . I n l i ghtof ourrul i ng i n t hi s cas e, w e not e thatthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s M ar ch 2004 or deri s al s o defe ct i ve. A l t hough thator deri s notpr oper l ybefor e us and t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d nothave the bene fi tof thi s deci s i on w hen i tent er ed that or der , w e exe r ci s e ours upervi s orypow ert o i ns tructthe di s tr i ctcour tthati tm ay n o t en fo rc e th e p ro v isio n s o f th e M a rc h 2 0 0 4 o rd e r th a t ar e in c o n sis ten t w ith th is- 10-

d e c is io n . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. O choa- Vas quez , 428 F. 3d 1015, 1029- 30 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , N o. 05- 1524, 2006 W L 1522633 ( U . S. O ct . 10, 2 0 0 6 ); s ee ge ner al l

y C upp v. Naught en , 414 U . S. 141, 146 ( 1973) ( des cr i bi ng s u p e rv is o ry p o w e r o f

a p p e lla te c o u rt s to re v ie w p ro c e e d in g s o f tr ia l c o u rt s ). Fi nal l y , w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o r es tr i ct M s. S iev e rd in g ’s fili n g s o n a n ysu bjec t m a tter a n d a s to a n yd e fe n d a n t is o v e rb ro a d . T h e d istric t co u rt’s M a rc h 2 0 0 4 fili n g re stric tio n s o rd e r w a s p ro p e rly l i m i t ed bys ubj ectm at t erand defendantbeca us e i tpr ohi bi t ed fi l i ngs bas ed on the s er i es of tr ans act i ons des cr i bed i n thati ni t i al fede r al act i on, cas e number 02- cv- 1950. G i ven M s . Si ever di ng’ s cont i nued fi l i ngs aft erthatr es tr i ct i on w as ent er ed, t he di s tr i ctcour tw as j us t i fi ed i n expandi ng the s cope of the fi l i ng r es t r i ct i ons , butt her e i s no appar entbas i s forext endi ng the r es tr i ct i on t o i ncl ude anysubjectm at t er and an yparty . M s. S i everdi ng has no tfi l ed li t i gati on against r andom per s ons orent i t i es . I ns t ead, s he has focus ed hereffor t s on fi l i ng act i ons agai ns tt he per s ons , ent i t i es , couns el , and i ns ur ance compani es of the part i es i nvol ved i n 02- cv- 1950. W e bel i eve the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nt ent i on, t o r es tr i ct f u rth e r a b u siv e fili n g s b yM s. S iev e rd in g , is b e st a c c o m p lish e d b ym o d if y in g its or dert o cr eat e a c ar eful l y - t ai l or ed r es tr i ct i on l i m i t i ng herabi l i tyt o fi l e ac t i ons a g a in s t th o s e p e rs o n s a n d e n titie s , b u t w ith o u t lim ita tio n to s u bje c t m a tte r. See , e. g. , Mar t i n- Trigona v. Lavi en , 737 F. 2d at1263 ( i ns truct i ng di s tr i ctcour ton- 11-

r emand t o cr afti nj unct i on r es t r i ct i ng abus i ve l i t i gantfr om fi l i ng anyact i ons ag ains t parti es, co u n sel, an d co u rtp erso n n el i n v o lved in p ri o r l it igation ). Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e affi r m the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deras m odi fi ed b yth is o p in io n . T h e p o rtio n o f th e o rd e r th a t sta tes “ K a yS iev e rd in g a n d D a v id S i e v e r d i n g a r e h e r e a f

t e rp r o h i b i t e d f

r o m c o m m e n c i n g a n y pro se l i t i gat i on i n any cour ti n t he U ni t ed St at es on anys ubj ectm at t er , ” R . , V ol . I , D oc. 788 at7 ¶ 1, is m o d ified to p ro h ib it th e S iev e rd in g s f ro m c o m m e n c in g a n yp ro se lit ig a tio n in anyfede ral dis t ri ctcou rtw i t hin the T enth C i rcui tagainstthe p ers on s, enti t i es, couns el , and i ns ur ance compani es of the part i es i nvol ved i n 02- cv- 1950. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r i s M O D IF IE D IN P A R T , a n d , a s m o d ifie d , is A F F IR M E D . Al l o u t s t a n d i n g mo t i o n s a r e DE NI E D.