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 F ebruary 15,2007 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 B E V E R L Y M A N N , i n d i v i d u a l l y, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . BRI AN D. BO ATR I GH T, i nd i vidual l yand i n h i s capacityas a Jeffers on C ou nty , C olor ado F i rs t J u d i c i a l Di s t r i c tJ u d g e ; J AM E S D. Z IM M E R M A N , ind iv id u a llya n d in h i s c a p a c i t y a s a J e ffe r s o n C o u n ty, C ol or ado Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ct J u d g e ; F R E D E R IC B . R O D G E R S , a G ilp in C o u n ty , C o lo ra d o , C o u n ty J udge and ( bys peci al des i gnat i on of C ol or ado Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ctC hi ef J udge R . B r ooke J acks on) J effer s on C o u n ty , C o lo ra d o , P ro b a te J u d g e , in h i s c a p a c i t y a s J e ffe r s o n C o u n t y, C ol or ado Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s t r i ct P r o b a t e J u d g e ; R. BR OOKE J A C K SO N , i n hi s capa ci t yas C hi ef Ju d g e o f

th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t, S t a t e o f Co l o r a d o ; J E F F E RS ON C O U N T Y , C O L O R A D O , a muni ci pal orc ou ntyc orpo r a t i on ; TH E FI RST J UDI CI AL DI S T RI CT , S T AT E OF CO L OR ADO; T HE S T AT E OF COLORADO; M ARY M UNG ER, i nd i vidual l yand i n h er capaci t yas a C i t yof Lakew ood, C ol or ado Pol i ce Offi c e r ; J ANE T YOUNG , i nd i vidual l yand i n h er capaci t yas a C i t yof Lakew ood, C ol or ado as s i s t ant c i t ya t t o r n e y ; T HE CI T Y OF N o. 05- 1559- 2-

L A K E W O O D , C ol or ado, a muni ci pal corpor at i on; T I N A L . O L SE N , i n her c a p a c i t y a s a J e ffe r s o n C o u n t y, Co l o r a d o , Co u n t yJ u d g e ; T HOMAS E . V A N C E , i n h i s capacityas a Je ffe rso n C o u n ty , C o lo ra d o , C o u n ty J u d g e ; WI L L I AM KI L P AT RI CK , in d iv id u a llya n d in h is c a p a c ity as C i t yof G ol den, C ol or ado Pol i ce Ch i e f; M AT T J UR I S CH K, i nd i vidual l yand i n h i s capacityas a C i t yof G ol den, C ol or ado Pol i ce Offi c e r ; T HE CI T Y OF GOL DE N, C ol or ado, a muni ci pal corpor at i on; M A R Y L O G A N , i ndi vi dual l y , as s har ehol derand as admi ni s t r at orof G ra n d O a k s C a re C e n ter in L a k e wo o d , Co l o r a d o ; S T E VE K U T C H E R , i ndi vi dual l yand as head n u rse o f G ra n d O a k s C a re C e n ter in La k e woo d , Col o r a d o ; DO NA LD L O G A N , i ndi vi dual l yand as as s i s t ant m anage rof G r and O aks C ar e C ent er i n L akew ood, C ol or ado; G E R I - C A R E , I N C . d/b/ a G r and O aks C ar e C ent er , i n L akew ood, C ol or ado; D A V I D R . G L O SS, i ndi vi dual l yand a s a n a g e n to f

J e ffe r s o n C o u n t y, C ol or ado, and as an age ntof The S t a t e o f Co l o r a d o ; S T E P HE NI E D. L O R I M E R ; “TH E V I SI T O R ”, a p p o i n t e d b yJ u d g e J a me s D. Z i m m erm an, pur s uantt o C ol or ado R evi s ed St atut es 15- 14- 305, i n hi s or hercapa ci t yas cour t - appoi nt ed “ Vi s i t o r ” ; J OHN S . GL E AS ON, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s capa ci t yas C ol or ado Supr eme C our tA t t or ney Regu l a t i on Couns e l ; LO U I SE C U L B E R S O N -S M IT H , ind iv id u a llyA 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 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 3- and i n hercapa ci t yas a C ol or ado Supr eme C our tA s s i s t ant At t o r n e yRe g u l a t i o n Co u n s e l ; T HE COLORADO SUP REME COURT OFFI CE O F ATTOR NEY REG ULA TI ON CO UN SEL; CA RLA M A R T I N , i ndi vi dual l yand i n her form ercapa ci t yas gener al m anage r o f Go l d e n P o n d S e n i o rLi v i n g , LL C; GOL DE N P OND S E NI OR L I VI NG, L L C , a C ol or ado corpor at i on; H E N R Y M E L T O N , i n hi s capa ci tyas E xecut i ve D i r ect orof G ol den Pond S e n i o rLi v i n g , LL C; ENRI CO G A L IM B E R T I, in d iv id u a llya n d in hi s capa ci t yas a deputyJ effer s on C o u n tyS h e riff; D O N A L D T A IT , in h is c a p a c itya s a su p e rv isin g d e p u ty J e ffe r s o n Cou n t ySh e r i ff; TED M I N K , i n hi s capa ci t yas J effer s on Co u n t yS h e r i ff; GAYL E KI NG; T RO Y KI NG; J OAN S CH E UM ANN; ERI K SCH EUM AN N; EI LEEN BI DW ELLL. a n d L. J EFF REY BI DW ELL, 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 . 0 5 - c v - 2 4 1 3 - R E B - MJ W) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: *( . . . cont i nued) * 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. R ookerv. F i del i t

y Tr us tC o. , 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 (1 9 2 3 ); D istric t o f C o lu m b ia 1 C our tof Appeals v. Feldm an , 4 6 0 U . S . 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ).

- 4- B ever l yM ann, pr o s e. E l i zabe t h C . M or an, A l y s on R ayR utber g, D onal d E . L ake, I I I , Pr y orJ ohns on C arneyK arrN i xon, P. C . , G r eenw ood V i l l age, C ol or ado forG ol den Pond Seni or L i ving, L L C , H enryM el t on , and C arl a M art i n, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. J . A n d re w N a th a n , A n d re w J . F is h e r, N a th a n , B re m e r, D u m m & M y e rs , P .C ., D enver , C ol or ado forW i l l i am K i l patr i ck, M at tJ ur i s chk and The C i tyof G ol den, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. Jo h n W . S u th e rs, F rie d ric k C . H a in e s, O ffice o f th e C o lo ra d o A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, De n v e r , Co l o r a d o fo rBr i a n D. Bo a tr i g h t , J a me s D. Zi mme r ma n , F r e d e r i c B. R odger s , R . B r ooke J acks on, T he Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof the St at e of Col or ado, T he S t at e of C olor ado , T i na L . O l sen, T ho m as E . V ance, J oh n S . G l eason, Lo uis e C ul ber s on- Sm i t h, and The C ol or ado Supr eme C our tO ffi ce of A t t or ney R egu l at i on C ou nsel , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. B efor e BARRETT , P O R F IL IO , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. P O R F IL IO , C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antB ever l yM ann appe al s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s al of hercompl ai ntforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on undert he R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e . S h e a lso c h a llen g e s its o rd e r d e n y in g h e r re q u e st to 1 file th e c o m p lain t u n d e r se a l an d se e k s re c o n sid e ra tio n o f o rd e rs is su e d b yth isT o avoi d confus i on, w e r efe rt o M s . M ann and he rfather , J os eph M ann, by 2 t heirfi rs tnam es.

- 5- c o u r twh i l e h e ra p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g . Ex e r c i s i n g o u rj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. W e a lso d e c lin e to v a c a te anypr evi ous rul i ngs i s s ued bym ot i ons panel s of thi s courtdur i ng the pende ncy o f th is a p p e a l. I. A . T h e P rob ate C o u rtO rde rs A tt he hea r tof thi s cas e ar e tw o C ol or ado pr obat e courtor der s that det erm i ned t hat B ever l y ’ s el der l yfather , J os eph M ann, i s i ncapa ci t at ed and 2 a p p o in te d d e fe n d a n t G a y le K in g a s h is g u a rd ia n a n d c o n s e rv a to r o f h is e s ta te . T h e u n fo rtu n ate c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing the c o u rt ’s i ssu an ce o f th ese o rde rs ar e des cr i bed i n det ai l i n B ever l y ’ s compl ai nt . T o s um m ar i ze, J os eph w as d iag n o se d w ith A lzh e im e r’s d ise a se in m id -2 0 0 4 . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 , h e lef t h is h o m etow n o f C h icag o , w h ere h e li v ed w ith B ev erly , fo r w h at w as to b e a sh o rt t r i p t o vi s i thi s gr anddaught er , K i ng, i n G ol den, C ol or ado. W hi l e i n C ol or ado, how ever , he br oke hi s el bow and had t o be hos pi t al i zed, atw hi ch poi nthi s m ent al heal t h det er i or at ed r api dl y . O n N ovember4, 2004, aft erhe w as r el eas ed fr om t he hos pi t al , J os eph exe cut ed a he al th- car e pow er - of- at t orneypr epar ed bydefe ndant a tto rn e yS tep h e n ie L o rim e r. T h is d o c u m e n t, w h ich is a ttac h e d to th e c o m p lain t, p u rpo rt s to rev o k e a ll p ri o r po w ers-o f-a tt o rne y , d esig n ates K ing as Jo sep h ’s- 6-

at t or ney - i n- fac t , and al s o s t at es t hatK i ng i s hi s pr efe rr ed guar di an i n the eve nt t hathe i s deemed i ncapa ci t at ed. E m pow er ed byt hi s pow er - of- at t or ney , K i ng pl ace d J os eph i n defe ndant G ol den Pond Seni orL i vi ng C ent erand obt ai ned a t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or dert hat pr ohi bi t ed B ever l yfr om cont act i ng hi m . B ever l y , havi ng tr avel ed t o C ol or ado, t r i ed s ever al t i m es t o vi s i tJ os eph atG ol den Pond and eve n enl i s t ed the hel p of the lo ca l po li ce . E ac h ti m e, ho w ev er, em p loy ee s o f G o lden P o n d , o n K ing ’s or der s and i n compl i ance w i t h t he r es tr ai ni ng or der , r efus ed t o l etB ever l ys ee he r father . A s a r es ul t , B ever l ycl ai m s thats he has nots een ors poken t o herfather s i nce N ovember28, 2004, w hen s he vi s i t ed hi m atthe G r and O aks N ur s i ng H o m e , w h e re h e liv e d b ri e fly b e fo re b e in g m o v e d to G o ld e n P o n d . O n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , K in g filed a p e tit io n u n d e r th e C o lo ra d o p ro b a te code thatr eques t ed a de t erm i nat i on thatJ os eph w as i ncapa ci t at ed and s ought appoi nt m entas hi s guar di an. I n a s epar at e pet i t i on, s he s oughtappoi nt m entas t he cons ervat orof J os eph’ s es t at e. W i th the court ’ s perm i s s i on, B ever l yi nt ervened i n t he ac t i on as an i nt er es t ed per s on and fi l ed obj ect i ons t o the pet i t i ons on m u lti p le g ro u n d s. S h e a rg u e d p rim a rilyth a t K in g h a d m a n ip u late d Jo se p h in to s i gni ng t he N ovember4, 2004, pow er - of- at t orneyata t i m e w hen he l acke d capac i t yt o m ake suc h d eci si on s. S he argu ed thatthe p ow er- of-at t orneyw as, t her efor e, nul l and voi d and coul d notoper at e t o voi d anypr i or pow er s - of- at t or ney , i ncl udi ng a 1998 pow er - of- at t or neythatJ os eph had e xecut ed,- 7-

des i gnat i ng B ever l yas hi s att or ney - i n- fac t . D efe ndants t at e courtj udge B r i an B oatr i ghthel d a hea r i ng on t he pet i t i ons on A pr i l 19, 2005. H e exc us ed J os eph fr om at t endi ng t he hea r i ng bas ed on a mot i on fi l ed byJ os eph’ s cour t - appoi nt ed at t or ney , defe ndantD avi d G l os s . B ever l y , how ever , att ended the hea r i ng, te s tifie d , a n d q u e s tio n e d w itn e s s e s . O n M ay9, 2005, and M ay11, 2005, J udge B oatr i ghti s s ued or der s gr ant i ng t he pet i t i ons forguar di ans hi p and cons ervat or s hi p, r es pect i vel y . I n the guar di ans hi p or der , w hi ch i s att ache d t o the compl ai nt , the courtfound bycl ear and convi nci ng evi dence t hatJ os eph w as an i ncapa ci t at ed per s on as a r es ul tof s ever e mem or yl os s caus ed byA l zhei m er ’ s di s eas e. W i th r es pectt o the appoi nt m entof K i ng, t he courts t at ed thati t“ha[ d] cons i der ed the w i s hes of the r es pondent[J os eph] conce r ni ng the s el ect i on of the guar di an as fi l ed i n the vi s i t or ’ s r epor tand r ei t er at ed byr es pondent ’ s C our tappoi nt ed att orney . ” R . doc. 1 , a tta c h . 5 a t 1 . T h e g u a rd ian sh ip o rd e r g ra n ts K in g b ro a d c o n tro l o v e r B e v e rly ’s a c c e ss to J os eph. I tpr ohi bi t s B ever l yfr om s peaki ng t o J os eph i n per s on orbyt el ephone w i t houtK i ng’ s cons entand pr ovi des thatB ever l ym ays end l et t er s and vi deot apes t o J os eph, s ubj ectt o pr e- s cr eeni ng byK i ng. I tal s o s t at es thatany corr es pondence t hatB ever l ys ends “s hal l i n no m annerbe di s par agi ng t ow ar ds t he r es tof the fa m i l y , t he W ar d’ s r es i dence i n C ol or ado orthe courtpr ocee di ngs gr ant i ng G uar di ans hi p and C ons ervat or s hi p t o M r s . K i ng. ” Id. , a tta c h . 5 a t 2 .- 8-

A l t hough B ever l yfi l ed numer ous m ot i ons i n the pr obat e courtchal l engi ng the guar di ans hi p and cons ervat or s hi p or der s , s he di d notappea l the or der s t o the C olor ado C ou rtof A pp eal s. B . T he D i s t r i ctC our tPr ocee di ngs O n N ovember29, 2005, B ever l yfi l ed a c om pl ai nti n U . S. D i s tr i ctC our ton b e h a lf o f h e rse lf a n d Jo se p h a g a in st 3 7 d e fe n d a n ts. A m o n g th e m is e v e rysta te j udge w ho had anyi nvol vementi n the pr obat e courtpr ocee di ngs ; the St at e of C o lorad o an d it s F ir st Jud ici al D istri ct; Jeffe rson C o u n tyan d it s sh eriff ’s depart m ent ; t he C i t yof Lakew ood, i t s C i tyA t t orney , and s om e of i t s pol i ce offi cer s ; t he C i t yof G ol den and s om e of i t s pol i ce offi cer s ; both of the as s i s t ed- l i vi ng cent er s t hathave hous ed J os eph; J os eph’ s cour t - appoi nt ed att or ney and the s t atut or i l y - des i gnat ed “vi s i t or ”; the off i ce of C ol or ado’ s A t t orney R egul at i on C ouns el and s om e of i t s empl oy ees ; K i ng, herfami l y , and her a tto rn e y ; an d B e v e rly ’s s iste rs a n d th e ir h u sb a n d s. T h e th ru st o f th e law su it i s to enjoi n v ari ou s order s i ssued byt he p robat e cou rt , m osti m po rt antl ytho se app oint i ng K i ng as guardian and con servator . T he co m plai nt al so seeks “ an e m e rg e n cy w rit o

f h a b e a s c o rp u s o r o th e r e m e rg e n cy w rit , ” R . doc. 1 at11, r equi r i ng J os eph’ s pr oduct i on i n courts o thathe maybe t ol d “thathe has been s t r i pped of mostof hi s l egal r i ght s and has been made the unl i m i t ed l egal w ar d of K i ng, ” i d. O n D ec em b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , B ev erlyfil ed a m o ti o n fo r a tem p o rary re stra in in g o rd e r a lso se e k in g e njo in m e n t o f th e g u a rd ian sh ip a n d c o n se rv a to rsh ip- 9-

or der s and r eques t i ng t hatJ os eph be appr i s ed of hi s l egal r i ght s . T he di s tr i ct cour tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nton i t s ow n m ot i on on D ece m ber19, 2005, hol di ng t hatt he R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne barr ed i tfr om r evi ew i ng or der s i s s ued i n the p ro b a te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. It a lso h e ld th a t R ooker - Feldm an b arred B ev erly ’s cl ai m s agai ns tt he i ndi vi dual defe ndant s beca us e thei ract i ons w er e bas ed on the pr obat e court ’ s or der s . T he courtconcl uded thati n the abs ence of s ubj ect - m att er j ur i s di ct i on, i tcoul d notaddr es s B ever l y ’ s r eques tfora t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng o rd e r a n d d is m is s e d th e c a s e . Par al l el i ng al l of thi s w as B ever l y ’ s att empt t o have he rfede r al compl ai nt s eal ed, oral t ernat i vel y , t he ca s e fi l e w i thhel d fr om the court ’ s w eb- bas ed fi l i ng sy ste m . T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied h e r re q u e sts , h o ld in g th a t B e v e rlyfa iled to d e m o n stra te a n yb a sis fo r se a lin g d o c u m e n ts filed in th e c a se . O n a p p e a l, B ever l yar gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n appl y i ng the R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e to h e r c laim s a n d a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re f u sin g to se a l h e r c o m p lain t. II. A . D i s m i s s al of the C om pl ai nt W e r evi ew t he di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ect - m at t er ju ri s d ic tio n d e n o v o . G uttm an v. Kha lsa , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). W e m ayaffirm the d ism issal on “a n yg rou n d s fo r w h ich th ere is a reco rd s uffi ci entt o perm i tconcl us i ons of l aw , even gr ounds notr el i ed upon bythe di s t r i ctcourt . ” L ip

p o ld t v. C o le , 468 F. 3d 1204, 1219 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on- 10-

om i t t ed) . H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe di s tr i ct c o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n o v e r th e lio n ’s s h a re o f B e v e rly ’s c laim s a n d p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed them undert he R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne. B ever l y ’ s compl ai ntdoes a llu d e to so m e c laim s d istin c t f ro m h e r c h a llen g e to th e sta te c o u rt’s g u a rd ian sh ip a n d c o n s e r v a t o r s h i p o r d e r s , w h i c h w o u l d n o tb e b a rr e d b y R ooker - Feldm an . B ut as expl ai ned bel ow , herat t empt t o s t at e anys uch cl ai m s fai l ed mi s er abl y , and thu s w e a ffirm the d ism issal of the b alan ce o f h er c o m p lai n t fo r i ts utt er d isr eg ard of the pl eadi ng r equi r ement s m andat ed byFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 8. “The R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne pr event s the l ow erfede r al court s fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on overcas es br oughtby‘ s t at e- courtl os er s ’ chal l engi ng

‘ s t at e- courtj udgm ent s r ender ed befor e the di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs comm ence d. ’ ” L a n c e v . D e n n is , 126 S. C t . 1198, 1199 ( 2006) ( quot i ng Exxon Mobi lC or

p. v. Saudi B as i c Indus . C or p. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (2 0 0 5 )). T o B e v e rly t hi s m eans t hathavi ng l os ti n pr obat e court , s he ca nnotfi l e a feder al compl ai nt se e k in g re v iew a n d re v e rsa l o f th e u n fa v o ra b le ju d g m e n t. E v e n if th e p ro b a te c o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s w ro n g , tha t d o e s n o t m a k e its ju d g m e n t v o id , b u t m e re ly lea v e s it “ o p e n to re v e rsa l o r m o d ifica tio n in a n a p p ro p ria te a n d tim e lya p p e llate pr ocee di ng. ” Exx o n -Mo b il , 544 U . S. at284 . T he C our tcl ar i fi ed i n Exx o n -Mo b ilthatthe R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e is confi ned “t o cas es br oughtaft erthe s t at e pr ocee di ngs have e nded. ” G ut tm an , 446 F. 3d at1031 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , forthe doctr i ne t o appl yher e, the- 11-

s t at e pr obat e pr ocee di ngs m us thave e nded befor e B ever l yfi l ed herfede r al c o m p lain t. B e v e rlya rg u e s th a t th e p ro b a te p ro c e e d in g s h a v e n o t en d e d a n d w ill n o t en d u n til e ith e r h e r fa th e r d ies o r th e g u a rd ian sh ip /co n se rv a to rsh ip is te rm in a te d . For tunat el y , t he C ol or ado Supr eme C our tr ece nt l yaddr es s ed the ques t i on of w h a t c o n s titu te s a fin a l ju d g m e n t o f th e p ro b a te c o u rt . Sc o tt v. Sc o tt , 136 P. 3d 892, 894 ( C ol o. 2006) . A l t hough the ca s e i nvol ved a w i l l pr obat e mat t er , w e s ee n o re a so n w h yth e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n s s h o u ld n o t ap p lye q u a llyto g u a rd ian sh ip and pr ot ect i ve pr ocee di ngs . I n Sc o tt , the courthel d thatthe rul es fordet erm i ni ng w hethera pr obat e courtor deri s fi nal ar e the s ame rul es thatgovern otherki nds of ci vi l cas es . “[A ] n or derof the pr obat e courti s fi nal i f i tends the part i cul aract i on i n w hi ch i ti s ent er ed and l eave s nothi ng fur therforthe courtpr onounci ng i tt o do i n or dert o compl et el ydet erm i ne the r i ght s of the part i es as t o thatpr ocee di ng. ” Id. at896. I tfur t herexpl ai ned thatthe s cope of a pr ocee di ng i n a pr obat e mat t er is g o v e rn e d b yth e p e titio n th a t in itia te d it. Id. at896- 97. “Ther efor e, w hen the p ro b a te c o u rt h a s f

u llyre so lv e d th e c laim s a p ro c e e d in g p re se n ts, th e p ro b a te cour thas i s s ued a f

i nal j udgm ent . ” Id. at896, n. 7. U n d er Sc o tt , t he s cope of the pr obat e pr ocee di ng ati s s ue i n thi s cas e w as fr amed byt he guar di ans hi p and cons ervat or s hi p pet i t i ons . T her efor e, once the probate courti ssued orders ful l yres olvi ng the clai m s r ai sed bythe p et i t i on s, th o s e o rd e rs c o n s titu te d fin a l ju d g m e n ts . S e e id . O n M ay9, 2005, and M ay11,U nderC ol or ado A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) , a not i ce of appea l m us tbe fi l ed 3 w i t hi n 45 day s of the dat e the of the entryof the j udgm ent , decr ee, oror derfr om w hich the p artyapp eal s.

- 12- 2 0 0 5 , the p ro b a te c o u rt issu e d o rd e rs g ra n tin g K in g ’s p e tit io n s fo r g u a rd ian sh ip an d co n serv atorsh ip, r esp ec ti v ely . O v er B ev erly ’s objecti o n s, the c o u rt det erm i ned thatJ os eph w as i ncapa ci t at ed and appoi nt ed K i ng as hi s guar di an and cons ervat orof hi s es t at e. T he or derappoi nt i ng a cons ervat ordi d r efe rt o ong o ing ad m inistrati v e fil ing s, b u t nev erthe less, the c lai m s raised in K ing ’s p e tit io n s w e re d e fin iti v e lyd e c id e d a n d “ th e re w a s n o th in g f u rth e r fo r th e p ro b a te cour tt o do i n or dert o compl et el ydet erm i ne the r i ght s of the part i es . ” Id. a t 8 9 8 . T h u s, w e c o n clud e tha t th e M ay9 , 2 0 0 5 , an d M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , p rob ate c o u rto rde rs c o n stitu ted fin a l an d a p p e a lab le ju d g m e n ts. S in c e B e v e rlyd id n o t file a tim e ly a p p e a l o f th o se ju d g m e n ts, th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e p ro b a te 3 pr ocee di ngs fi nal forpurpos es of R ooker - Feldm an . W e mustnow det erm i ne w hetherB ever l y ’ s fede r al compl ai nt im p e rm is s ib ly se e k s re v ie w a n d re v e rs a l o f th e p ro b a te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts . See B olden v. C i t

y of Topeka, Kans as , 441 F. 3d 1129, 1143 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (e x p lain in g th a t R ooker - Feldm an pr ecl udes cas es “i nvi t i ng di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew a n d rejec tio n o f

[ sta te- c o u rt] ju d g m e n ts.” ). O n p a g e 9 8 o f h e r c o m p lain t, B e v e rly s peci fi cal l yr eques t s a dec l ar at oryj udgm entnul l i fy i ng var i ous or der s of the p ro b a te c o u rt , in c lu d in g th e o rd e rs a p p o in tin g K in g g u a rd ia n a n d c o n s e rv a to r.- 13-

She al s o s eeks a dec l ar at or yj udgm entthatJ os eph w as notm ent al l ycogni zant w h e n h e sig n e d th e N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , p o w e r-o f-a tto rn e yd e sig n a tin g K in g a s h is at t or ney - i n- fac t . B ever l yal l eges thatthe governi ng documents houl d have be en th e 1 9 9 8 p o w e r-o f-a tto rn e y , in w h ich Jo se p h d e sig n a ted h e r a s h is a tto rn e y -i n -fa c t, a n d th e c o m p la in t r e q u e s ts a d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t to th a t e ffe c t. I n addi t i on, i ts eeks a “pe r m anentenj oi nm entof [the pr obat e court ’ s ] or der s as v iolati v e o f th e F ir st an d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts. ” R . d o c. 1 a t 11 . T h ese are pr eci s el yt he types of cl ai m s encompas s ed bythe R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne, and th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d th e m . See Bolden , 441 F. 3d at1143 ( “ A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w – t h e t yp e o f j u d i c i a l a c t i o n b a rr e d b y R ooker - Feldm an – cons i s t s of a r evi ew of the pr ocee di ngs al r eadyconduct ed bythe ‘ l ow er ’ tr i bunal to d e te rm in e w h e th e r i t r e a c h e d its re s u lt in a c c o rd a n c e w ith la w .” ). In a d d iti o n to inju n c tiv e re lief, B e v e rlyse e k s m o n e tar yd a m a g e s a g a in st a var i etyof governm entact or s and pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s forthe al l eged vi ol at i ons of h er c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts oc ca sion ed b ytheir co m p li cityw ith the p rob ate c o u rt ’s o r d e r s . T h e s e c l a i m s t o o a r e b a r r e d b y R ooker - Feldm an . “[ A ] distr ictco u rt [ c a n ]n o t en ter tain c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s a ttac k in g a sta te- c o u rt ju d g m e n t, ev e n if t he s t at e court[di d] notpas s [] di r ect l yon thos e cl ai m s , w hen the cons t i tut i onal at t ack [ i s ] ‘ i nextr i cabl yi nt ert w i ned’ w i th the s t at e court ’ s j udgm ent . ” Exx o n -Mo b il , 544 U . S. at286, n. 1. ( quot i ng D is tr i ctof C ol um bi a v. Feldm an , 460 U . S. 462, 482, n. 16 ( 1983) ) . N ear l yal l of B ever l y ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tthe- 14-

i ndi vi dual defe ndant s as s erti nj ur i es bas ed on the pr obat e courtj udgm ent s and, for her t o p revai l , w ou l d requir e t he d i stri ctcou rtt o revi ew and rej ecttho se ju d g m e n ts. A s s u c h , h e r c laim s a re in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith th e p ro b a te cour tj udgm ent s and ar e ther efor e barr ed bythe R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne. W e s ay“nea r l y ” al l of hercl ai m s ar e barr ed bec aus e s om e of the al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntconce rn event s thatw oul d s eem t o r ai s e i ndepende nt cl ai m s . Scat t er ed thr oughoutt he compl ai nt , forexampl e, ar e vague al l egat i ons th a t a rg u a b ly co u ld g iv e ri s e to s ta te -l a w c la im s fo r d e fa m a tio n a n d c o n v e rs io n . Such cl ai m s , i f ade quat el ys t at ed, w oul d notbe barr ed bythe R ooker - Feldm an d o c tr in e . See Bolden , 441 F. 3d at1143 ( expl ai ni ng thatfede r al courtr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on overi ndepende ntcl ai m s , even thos e thatdenyl egal concl us i on rea ch ed b ystat e c o u rt ). B u t i f B ev erlyd o es h av e c lai m s b ey o n d the d o ctri n e’s r eac h, w e ar e ata l os s t o di s cern pr eci s el yw hattheyar e. N ow her e i n her 99- page, s i ngl e- s pace d pl eadi ng coul d w e fi nd “a s hor tand pl ai n s t at ementof the cl ai m s how i ng t hat[s he] i s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 8( a) . T hi s al one w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u ffic ie n t r e a s o n to d is m is s th e c o m p la in t. See Uni t ed Stat es ex r el . G ars tv. Lockhee d- Mar t i n C or p. , 328 F. 3d 374, 378- 79 ( 7th C i r . 2003) ( aff i r m i ng di s m i s s al forpl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o conform compl ai ntt o pl eadi ng rul es a n d c o lle c tin g c a s e s ).See R . d o c . 1 a t7 . W h i l e w e g e n e r a l l y c o n s tru e p r o s e p l e a d i n g s l i b e r a l l y, 4 s ee Hai nes v. Ker ner , 404 U . S. 519, 520- 21 ( 1972) , t he s ame cour t es yneed notbe e x te n d e d to lic e n s e d a tto rn e y s . Sm ith v . P la ti , 2 5 8 F . 3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

- 15- R u le 8 se rv e s th e im p o rta n t p u rp o se o f re q u irin g p lain tiffs to sta te th e ir cl ai m s i nt el l i gi bl ys o as t o i nform the defendant s of the l egal cl ai m s bei ng a s s e rt e d . Som ethi ng l abel ed a c om pl ai ntbutw r i t t en more as a pr es s r el eas e, pr ol i x i n evi dent i arydet ai l , y etw i thouts i m pl i ci ty , conci s enes s and c lar itya s to w h o m p lain tiffs a re su in g fo r w h a t w ro n g s, fa ils to p e rfo rm th e e s s e n tia l f u n c tio n s o f

a c o m p la in t. McHenr y v. R enne , 84 F. 3d 1172, 1180 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . I n i t s s heerl ength, B ever l yhas m ade he rcompl ai ntuni nt el l i gi bl e “bys catt er i ng and conc eal i ng i n a m or as s of i r r el evanc i es t he fe w al l egat i ons thatm at t er . ” G arst , 3 2 8 F .3 d a t 3 7 8 . A nd pr ol i xi t yi s noteven the mai n pr obl em. A l though B ever l yi s a l i cens ed at t or ney i n t he St at e of I l l i noi s , s he has cur i ous l yes chew ed the tr adi t i onal 4 p l e a d i n g s t y l e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b ya s h o r tr e c i t a t i o n o f t h e fa c t s fo l l o we d b yc l a i ms forr el i ef. I ns t ead, herfi r s tand onl y“C l ai m ForR el i ef, ” R . doc. 1 at13, goes on fo r 4 6 3 p a ra g ra p h s s p a n n in g 8 3 p a g e s, a n d y e t itn e ith e r id e n tifie s a c o n c re te l egal t heorynort ar get s a part i cul ardefe ndant . She r eques t s s peci fi c r el i ef a tt he e n d o f h e r p lea d in g , b u t b yth is p o in t n o t ev e n th e m o st a tten tiv e o f re a d e rs c o u ld fi gur e outw ho di d w hatt o w hom . I n s hor t , i thar dl ym at t er s w hethert he di s tr i ct co u rtd ism issed B ev erly ’s co m p lai n t bec au se itb eli ev ed all o f h er c lai m s w ere- 16-

b a r r e d b y R ooker - Feldm an ors i m pl ybeca us e i tcoul d nots epar at e the w heatfr om t h e c h a ff. I twa s n o tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j o b t o s t i t c h t o g e th e rc o g n i z a b l e c l a i ms forr el i ef f

r om t he w hol l ydefi ci entpl eadi ng thatB ever l yfi l ed. A s w e have fr equent l ynot ed, w e ar e l oath t o r ever s e a di s tr i ctcour tforr efus i ng t o do the litig a n t’ s jo b . See, e. g. , Mi t chel lv. C i t y of Moor e, O kla. , 218 F. 3d 1190, 1199 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( aff

i r m i ng gr antof s um m aryj udgm entw her e non- m ovant su b m itt e d in a d e q u a te r e sp o n se ); SI L- F LO , Inc. v. SFH C, Inc. , 917 F. 2d 1507, 1 5 1 3 -1 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( d e fe rr in g to d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ru lin g o n ju ry in s tru c tio n s ). B . O rd e r D e n y in g M o tio n s to S e a l C o m p lain t A lon g w ith h er c o m p lai n t, B ev erlyfil ed tw o m o ti o n s in the d istri ct co u rt s eeki ng t o s eal t he compl ai ntand otherdocument s fi l ed i n the ca s e ort o pr ocee d u n d e r a p s e u d o n ym . See R . docs . 2, 3. A s an al t ernat i ve, s he r eques t ed that document s fi l ed i n t he ca s e notbe pl ace d on PA C E R , the court ’ s i nt ernetfi l i ng w ebs i t e. I n s uppor tof herm ot i on, B ever l yar gued thatbeca us e s he has been deni ed ac ces s t o J os eph, s he w as notabl e t o s peak t o hi m pr i ort o fi l i ng the law su it. S h e m a in tain e d , h o w e v e r, th a t h e w o u ld b e “ p ro fo u n d lye m b a rra ss e d ” if th e d e ta ils re la te d in th e c o m p la in t w e re to b e c o m e p u b lic ly av a ila b le . Id. d o c . 3 a t 3 . A n d sh e a rg u e d th a t re lea sin g th e c o m p lain t to th e p u b lic w o u ld “cons t i tut e[] a pr ofound i nvas i on of herow n pr i vacy . ” Id . A m agi s tr at e j udge deni ed both m ot i ons , hol di ng t hatB ever l yfai l ed t o demonstr at e anybas i s for s eal i ng document s fi l ed i n t he ca s e. B ever l yappea l ed the dec i s i on t o the di s tr i ct- 17-

cour tj udge, w ho uphel d i tbyor derdat ed D ece m ber16, 2005, concl udi ng thatt he ma g i s t r a t e ’ s d e c i s i o n wa s n o tc o n tr a ryt o l a w. W hetherj udi ci al r ecor ds and othercas e- r el at ed i nform at i on s houl d be s eal ed orot herw i s e w i t hhel d fr om the publ i c i s a mat t erl eftt o the s ound d is c re tio n o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Nixon v. War nerC om m c’ ns , Inc. , 435 U . S. 589, 599 ( 1978) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l notdi s turb the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o keep t he ca s e fi l e publ i c unl es s w e have a “de fi ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on that[i t ] m ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n the ci r cumst ance s . ” Mo o th a rt v . B e ll , 21 F. 3d 1499, 1504 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( quot at i on o m itted). B ev erlyfa il s to c o n v ince u s u n d er this st an d ard that the d istri ct co u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e re lie f re q u e s te d in h e r m o tio n s . C our t s have l ong r ecogni zed a comm on- l aw r i ghtof ac ces s t o j udi ci al re c o rd s . Nixon , 4 3 5 U .S . at 5 9 7 ; Lanpher e & Ur bani ak v. C ol or ado , 21 F. 3d 1508, 1511 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) . T hi s r i ght , how ever , i s notabs ol ut e. T he

“ p re su m p tio n o f

a c c e ss . . . ca n b e re b u tted if c o u n ter v a ili n g in ter e sts h e a v ily out w ei gh t he publ i c i nt er es t s i n acc es s . ” R us hf or d v. New YorkerMagaz i ne, Inc. , 846 F. 2d 249, 253 ( 4t h C i r . 1988) . “The par tys eeki ng t o over come t he pr es um pt i on bear s t he bur den of s how i ng s om e s i gni fi canti nt er es tthatoutw ei ghs t he pr es um pt i on. ” Id. W e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t B e v e rlyfa iled to demonstr at e a ba s i s fors eal i ng t he compl ai ntorotherdocument s i n the ca s e. T he c o m p lain t co n tain s a d e taile d h isto ryo f B e v e rly ’s o n -g o in g fe u d w ith h e r fa m ily- 18-

an d d iscl o ses th at Jo sep h h as b ee n d iagn o sed w ith A lzhe im er’s d isease . W e a re n o t co n v in c e d , h o w e v e r, th a t B e v e rly ’s p riv a c yc o n c e rn w ith re sp e c t to th is i nform at i on i s s uffi ci ent l ycr i t i cal t o out w ei gh the s tr ong pr es um pt i on i n favorof p u b lic a c c e s s to ju d ic ia l r e c o rd s . C f . Jam es v. Jacobs on , 6 F .3 d 2 3 3 , 2 3 9 (4 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tp l a i n t i ffs s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r mi t t e d t o u s e p s e u d o n yms s o as t o pr eventt hei rchi l dr en fr om l earni ng the true i dent i tyof thei rbi ol ogi cal fa ther). W e a lso n o te th at m u ch o f th e info rm ati o n co n tai n ed in B ev erly ’s co m p lai n t app ea rs t o h av e b ee n d iscl o sed p rev iou slyin the p u b li c p rob ate c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s , f

u rt h e r u n d e rm in in g h e r p ri v a c yc o n c e rn s . C . M ot i ons Panel R ul i ngs Fi nal l y , B ever l yas ks us t o r econs i derthe fol l ow i ng tw o or der s i s s ued by m ot i ons panel s of thi s cour tdur i ng the pende ncyof herappea l : ( 1) a February6, 2006, or derhol di ng t hats he i s notl egal l yauthor i zed t o actforJ os eph and di s m i s s i ng hi m fr om t he appe al ; and ( 2) a M ar ch 30, 2006, or deri m pos i ng sa n c tio n s o n B e v e rlyfo r fili n g f riv o lo u s m o tio n s a n d u n n e c e ss a rilyb u rd e n in g th is c o u rt .M ot i ons panel deci s i ons ar e t ent at i ve and s ubj ectt o r eexa m i nat i on bythe m e ri ts p a n e l. St i

f el, Ni colaus & Co. v. Wools ey & C o. , 81 F. 3d 1540, 1544 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . W i t h r es pectt o the fi r s tor der , B ever l yar gues thatunder C ol or ado l aw , s he has s t andi ng t o pur s ue cl ai m s on behal f of he rfather , and th e re fo re , th e m o tio n s p a n e l c o m m itte d e rr o r i n d is m is s in g h im f ro m th e a p p e a l.C o n tra ryto B e v e rly ’s a rg u m e n t, he r c a se is n o t su fficie n tlya n a lo g o u s to 5 Wi nkelm an v. P ar m a C i t y SchoolD is tr i ct , N o. 04- 4159, curr ent l ypendi ng i n t he Si xt h C i r cui t , t o j us t i fyherr epea t ed att empt s t o s etas i de thi s court ’ s February6, 2 0 0 6 , o rd e r. Wi nkelm an i nvol ves t he narr ow ques t i on of w hetherpar ent s m ay p ro se c u te c laim s p ro se o n b e h a lf o f th e ir m in o r c h ild re n u n d e r th e In d iv id u a ls w i t h D i s abi l i t i es E ducat i on A ct( “I D E A ”) . T he Supr eme C our t ’ s gr antof a s t ay i n t hatcas e pendi ng di s pos i t i on of the W i nkel m ans ’ s pet i t i on forcert i or ar i i s of no r el evanc e her e. J os eph i s notB ever l y ’ s m i norchi l d, s he i s nothi s l egal g u a rd ian , an d sh e a d m itt e d lyd o e s n o t k n o w w h a t h is w ish e s a re w ith re sp e c t to th e p ro s e c u tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. Wi nkelm an and otherID E A cases i nv olvi ng pro se par ent al r epr es ent at i on of m i norchi l dr en ar e s i m pl yi nappos i t e.

- 19- In suppo rt , she ci t es In re Est ate of Mi lst ei n v. A yers , 9 5 5 P .2 d 7 8 , 8 1 (C o lo . C t. A pp. 1998) , a ca s e i n w hi ch the courtperm i t t ed a s on t o br i ng cl ai m s on behal f of hi s i ncapa ci t at ed mot herovert he obj ect i ons of herguar di an. I n A yers , the c o u rt hel d t hat“[b] eca us e a gua r di ans hi p pr ocee di ng i nvol ves a pot ent i al depr i vat i on of fundament al r i ght s and l i ber t i es , i ti m pl i cat es cons t i tut i onal i s s ues . ” Id. a t 8 1 . T h e re fo re , ith e ld th a t th e c o n c e p t o f th ird -p a rtysta n d in g a p p lied to g u a rd ian sh ip p ro c e e d in g s . Id. W e a g ree w ith B ev erlythat u n d er A yers , s h e h a s s t a n d i n g t o p u r s u e c l a i ms o n b e h a lf

o f h e r fa th e r i n v o lv in g a lle g e d d e p ri v a tio n s o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . N eith er A yers noranyot hercas e thats he ci t es , how ever , s anct i ons the pr act i ce of as s er t i ng s uch cl ai m s pr o s e. A s t he mot i ons panel hel d i n i t s February6, 2006, 5 or der , undert hi s cour t ’ s pr ece dent , even i f B ever l yw er e J os eph’ s l egal guar di an, s he w oul d notbe abl e t o br i ng s ui ton hi s behal f w i thoutt he as s i s t ance of- 20-

c o u n s e l. See Meekerv. Ker cher , 782 F. 2d 153, 154 ( 10th C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng t hat fa th e r d id n o t h a v e ri g h t to re p re s e n t m in o r d a u g h te rs p ro s e ).

I tgoes w i t houts ay i ng thati ti s noti n the i nt er es t s of m i nor s or i ncompet ent s t hatt heybe r epr es ent ed bynon- at t or ney s . W her e they have c l ai m s t hatr equi r e adj udi cat i on, theyar e ent i t l ed t o tr ai ned l egal as s i s t ance s o t hei rr i ght s m aybe ful l ypr ot ect ed. C h e u n gv . Yo u th O rc h e str a Fo u n d . o f B u ffa lo , 9 0 6 F . 2 d 5 9 , 6 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) . As t he C heungcour tnot ed, t o al l ow guar di ans t o br i ng pr o s e l i t i gat i on al s o i nvi t es abus e, as t he pr es entcas e maydemonstr at e. A l though B ever l ycl ai m s t o be a l i cens ed att or ney , s he i s notl i cens ed i n the St at e of Col or ado and s he has nei ther s o u g h tn o rb e e n g r a n t e d p e r m i s s i o n t o p r a c t i c e b e fo r e th i s c o u r t . A c c o r d i n g l y, s he has no r i ghtt o pr os ecut e thi s appea l on J os eph’ s behal f, and the mot i ons p a n e l c o rr e c tly d is m is s e d h im f ro m th e a p p e a l. I n t he M ar ch 30, 2006, or der , the mot i ons panel s anct i oned B ever l yi n the a m o u n t o f

$ 5 0 0 fo r filin g f

ri v o lo u s m o tio n s s e e k in g u n w a rr a n te d re lie f. See 10t h C i r . R . 46. 5( B ) ( 2) . W i t hi n thr ee mont hs of herappea l bei ng docket ed, Be v e r l yfi l e d b e t we e n fi v e a n d s e v e n mo t i o n s , d e p e n d i n g o n h o w y o u c o u n tth e m, s eeki ng everyt hi ng fr om an emer gencyw r i tof m andamus on J os eph’ s behal f t o an or derr equi r i ng t he cl erk of thi s courtt o s erve hervi a emai l . A m ot i ons panel d en ied th e m o ti o n s an d w arn ed B ev erlythat rep ea ted v iolati o n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 4 6 .5 w o u ld p o ten tiallylea d to sa n c tio n s. O n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 6 , af ter B e v e rly t w i ce soug ht r econ si derat i on of a d eci ded i ssue, she w as ordered t o sho w cause- 21-

w hys anct i ons s houl d notbe i m pos ed. T he mot i ons panel or der ed the s anct i ons upon r ece i vi ng B ever l y ’ s r es pons e. T h is c o u rt h a s th e in h e re n t p o w e r to im p o se sa n c tio n s th a t ar e n e c e ss a ryto re g u la te its d o c k e t, p ro m o te ju d ic ia l e ffic ie n c y , a n d d e te r f ri v o lo u s filin g s . C hrist ensen v . Ward , 916 F. 2d 1462, 1469 ( 10th C i r . 1990) . B ever l y ’ s r epea t ed fr i vol ous m ot i ons have c aus ed thi s cour tt o expend va l uabl e t i m e and r es our ces t hatcoul d have be en bett ers pentaddr es s i ng m er i t or i ous ar gum ent s advanc ed by ru l e - a b i d i n g l i t i g a n t s . We t h e r e fo r e u p h o l d th e Ma r c h 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , o r d e r . We f u rth e r O R D E R th a t B e v e rlysh a ll n o t b e p e rm itt e d to p u rsu e a d d iti o n a l ap p e a ls in t hi s cour tunt i l s he pr ovi des adequa t e pr oof thats he has compl i ed w i th the s a n c tio n s im p o s e d in th is c a s e . C hrist ensen v . Ward , 9 1 6 F .2 d 1 4 8 5 , 1 4 8 5 (1 0 th C i r . 1990) T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is A F F IR M E D . B e v e rly ’s r e q u e st to v a c a te th e o rd e rs o f

F e b ru a ry6 , 2 0 0 6 , an d M a rc h 3 0 , 2 0 0 6 , is D E N IE D , an d a ll o th e r p e n d in g m o tio n s a re D E N IE D a s m o o t.