UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

WALTER ELIYAH THODY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Nos. 17-7012 & 17-7013 

(D.C. No. 6:91-CR-00051-JHP-1) 

(E.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Pro se appellant Walter Thody challenges his convictions for crimes he 

committed in 1991. The district court dismissed the underlying matter for violation 

of the court’s valid order to restrict abusive filings. The district court’s judgment is 

affirmed. Mr. Thody’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is 

denied. 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

September 15, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

FILING RESTRICTIONS

 This court has twice rejected Mr. Thody’s post-conviction attempts to overturn 

his 1991 conviction. United States v. Thody, 460 F. App’x 776 (10th Cir. 2012); 

United States v. Thody, 569 F. App’x 592 (10th Cir. 2014). In the latter appeal, this 

court denied the government’s request to impose filing restrictions on Mr. Thody, 

finding them unnecessary because the district court had imposed restrictions. 

569 F. App’x at 593 n.2. We now determine that filing restrictions are appropriate in 

light of the appeals noted above and Mr. Thody’s continued and repeated violations 

of the district court’s filing restrictions entered December 18, 2013. 

 Consequently, we impose restrictions on his filings in this court, whether or 

not he pays a full filing fee. The filing restrictions apply to further appeals from the 

district court’s denial of post-conviction motions in his underlying criminal case, 

district court case No. CR-91-51-1, convictions affirmed on appeal, United States v. 

Thody, No. 92-7013, 978 F.2d 625 (10th Cir. 1992). Mr. Thody is enjoined from 

proceeding as an appellant or a petitioner without the representation of a licensed 

attorney admitted to practice in this court, unless he first obtains permission to 

proceed pro se. To do so, he must take the following steps: 

1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file a pro se 

proceeding; 

2. Include in the petition the following information: 
3 

 a. A list, by case name, number, and citation where applicable, of all 

proceedings currently pending or filed previously in this court by Mr. Thody, with a 

statement indicating the current status or disposition of each proceeding; 

 b. A list apprising this court of all outstanding injunctions, contempt 

orders, or other judicial directions limiting his access to state or federal court, 

including orders and injunctions requiring him to be represented by an attorney; said 

list to include the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of all such orders and 

injunctions; 

3. File with the clerk a notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, which recites 

the issues he seeks to present, including a particularized description of the order or 

ruling being challenged and a short statement of the legal basis asserted for the 

challenge. The affidavit must also certify, to the best of his knowledge, that the legal 

arguments advanced are not frivolous or made in bad faith; that they are warranted by 

existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of 

existing law; that the appeal or other proceeding is not interposed for any improper 

purpose; and that he will comply with all federal appellate rules and local rules of 

this court. 

These documents shall be submitted to the clerk of this court, who shall 

forward them to the court for review to determine whether to permit the pro se appeal 

or other proceeding. Without the court’s approval, the matter will not proceed. If the 

court approves the submission, an order will be entered indicating that the matter 
4 

shall proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the 

Tenth Circuit Rules. Only at that juncture will the appeal or other proceeding 

formally be filed in this court. 

Mr. Thody shall have ten days from the date of this order and judgment to file 

written objections, limited to fifteen pages, to these proposed restrictions. Unless 

this court orders otherwise upon review of any objections, the restrictions shall take 

effect twenty days from the date of this order and judgment and shall apply to any 

matter filed by Mr. Thody with this court after that time. 

CONCLUSION

The district court’s judgment dismissing the underlying matter is affirmed. 

Mr. Thody’s IFP motion is denied. He has not offered “a reasoned, nonfrivolous 

argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal.” McIntosh v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Therefore, immediate payment of the unpaid balance of the appellate filing 

fee is due. The filing restrictions set forth herein shall be imposed upon Mr. Thody 

unless this court orders otherwise upon review of timely filed written objections. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge