UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MARY LEE KAHLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a/k/a Walmart, Inc., Defendant - Appellee. No. 24-1023 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV -01536-WJM-STV) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , BALDOCK , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Mary Lee Kahler appeals from an or der striking several documents she filed in district court. In striking Kahler’s filings, th e district court noted it had long past dismissed the underlying acti on and Kahler had already exhausted her right to appeal. The district court did not abuse its di scretion in striking Kahler’s filings. Thus, this court exer cises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms the district court order dated December 19, 2023.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argumen t would not material ly assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding preced ent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, a nd collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 14, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 12 Kahler filed the complaint underl ying this action on May 29, 2020, raising claims under several fe deral civil rights provisions. Kahler v. Walmart
Inc. , No. 22-1136, 2023 WL 18358, at *2 ( 10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2023). The district court concluded all claims set out in Kahler’s complaint were barred by claim preclusion. Id. This court affirmed the distri ct court’s order of dismissal. Id. at *4. In so doing, however, this court affi rmed one narrow aspect of the district court order on alternate grounds. Id. at *3-4. Kahler concluded a claim relating to a letter Walmart’s counsel sent Kahl er on January 16, 20 20, was not subject to claim preclusion. Id. Kahler nevertheless affirmed the district court’s dismissal of that claim because it failed as a matter of law. Id. After this court issued its mandate in Kahler , Kahler continued to file documents in this case in th e district court. Kahler fi led Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions, essentially asking the district c ourt to review and

reverse Kahler ’s conclusion that Kahler’s re taliation claim arising from the January 16 email failed as a matter of law. The district c ourt denied Kahler’s Rule 59 and 60 motions, correctly reas oning it did not have jurisdiction to review Kahler . This court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Kahler’s appeal from the denial of her Rule 59 and 60 motions because her notice of appeal was not timely filed. Kahler filed a seri es of additional documents, specifically including a motion for summary judgment. In response to Walmart’s motion to strike the summary judgment motion, th e district court struck all pending documents filed by Kahler. In so doing, th e district court concluded as follows: Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 23 “The Court respects and empathizes with the fact [Kahler] earnestly feels she has been wronged. But she has received he r day in court. It cannot be stated emphatically enough that this action is over. [Kahler] has exhausted her procedurally proper appeals, and she has lost.” This court reviews the district cour t order striking Kahler’s filings for abuse of discretion. Fowler Bros. v. Young (In re Young) , 91 F.3d 1367, 1377 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Hornsby v. Evans , 328 F. App’x 587, 588 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished dispositi on cited solely for its pe rsuasive value) (“The power of district courts to manage th eir dockets is deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence, and a district court’s exercise of that power is reviewed only for abuse of discretion.”). A di strict court abuses its di scretion when it issues an “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment.” Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. , 661 F.3d 1209, 1227 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). In addition, “a decisi on based on an erroneous view of the law is an abuse of discretion.” Dennis Garberg & Assocs . v. Pack-Tech Int’l Corp. , 115 F.3d 767, 77 1 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court acted well within the bounds of its discretion in striking Kahler’s filings. This court’s decision in Kahler made clear Kahler’s claim related to the January 16, 2020, email failed as a matter of law. The district court emphasized this point, and its powerlessness to overrule or disregard Kahler in resolving Kahler’s Rule 59 and 60 motions. Given all this, the district court was quite correct in concluding Ka hler received her day in Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 34 court, exhausted her proce durally proper appeals, and lost. Because Kahler has already received her fair share of scarce judicial resources, Hornsby , 328 F. App’x at 589, the district court acted re asonably in striking Kahler’s filings and reminding her this case has come to its end. This court declines Walmart’s reque st to declare Kahler’s appeal frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. Nevertheless, as did the district court, we specifically caution Kahler th at this case has come to a close. Any further district court filings or a ppeals in this matter may ve ry well subject Kahler to sanctions and/or an award in Wa lmart’s favor of attorney fees. The order of the United States Di strict Court for the District of Colorado is hereby AFFIRMED

.
Entered for the Court
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 4