T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 27, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CH A RL ES H . CL EM EN TS, P lain tiff /C o u n ter -D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e llan t, v. N os . 05- 1362 & 05- 1429 J ANI S E . CH AP M AN; KAT HE RI NE GRI ER, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees, THOM AS C . “ DOC” M I LL ER, D e f e n d a n t/C o u n ter -C laim a n tA ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CI V- 2 4 5 5 - REB - BNB) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned u n a n im o u slyth a t o ra l ar g u m e n t w o u ld n o t m a ter iallya ss ist in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is appea l . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e,-2-

o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. P lai n ti ff C h arles C lem en ts, ap p ea ri n g p ro se , ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s di s m i s s al of hi s ci vi l compl ai ntagai ns tdefe ndant s J ani s C hapman, K ather i ne G r i er , and T hom as M i l l er . Pl ai nt i ff a l s o appea l s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or dergr ant i ng defe ndant G ri er’ s m oti on for sanct i on s und er Fede ral R ule of C i vil P rocedu re 11. W e exerci se j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f f i rm. I. I n 2003, C l ement s i ni t i at ed a domes t i c r el at i ons cas e aga i ns thi s now ex- w i fe, V i ct or i a Law l er , i n the D i s tr i ctC our tof A dams C ounty , C ol or ado. C l ement s w as r epr es ent ed i n the mat t erbydefe ndantM i l l er . L aw l erw as r epr es ent ed bydefe ndant G rie r. A t so m e p o in t w h ich is u n c lea r f ro m th e re c o rd , d e f

e n d a n t C h a p m a n , a s tate m agis trat e j ud ge, w as ass i gn ed to presi de o ver C l em ents ’ cas e. A ccordi ng t o C l em ents , C h a p m a n p ro c e e d e d to h o ld a n e x p a rte h e a rin g in th e c a se w ith o u t g iv in g C lem e n ts not i ce oran opportuni tyt o pr es entevi dence , and s ubs equent l y“i s s ued or der s ex part e” th a t “ o v e rtu rn [ e d ] t h e o rd e rs ” is s u e d b yth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e in itia lly a s s ig n e d to th e c a s e . A pl t . R epl yB r . at1. A ppar ent l y , the “e x part e or der s ” al l egedl yi s s ued bydefe ndant C h a p m a n w e re n o t in C lem e n ts’ f a v o r. It is u n c lea r f

ro m th e re c o rd w h e th e r C lem e n ts appea l ed fr om the rul i ngs i s s ued bydefe ndantC hapman. O n N ovember26, 2004, C l ement s i ni t i at ed thes e fe der al pr ocee di ngs byfi l i ng a ci vi l compl ai ntagai ns tdefe ndant s C hapman, G r i erand M i l l er . A l though the al l egat i ons i n hi s compl ai ntw er e qui t e vague , C l ement s appea r ed t o be as s ert i ng that , dur i ng the-3-

c o u rse o f h is d o m e stic re latio n s c a se in C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rt, G rie r a n d M ill e r e n g a g e d in a t el ephone c onver s at i on on M ar ch 4, 2004, dur i ng w hi ch G r i er , i n or dert o gai n an “adva nt age” i n the domest i c r el at i ons cas e, ( a) thr eat ened Cl ement s w i th “unfounde d cr i m i nal char ges , arr es tand i ncar cer at i on, ” ( b) i ndi cat ed thats he had “ i m pr operi nfl uence w i th [d efen dan t ] C hap m an, ” and (c) w arned t hat defend ant C hap m an h el d “judi ci al bias .

. . t ow ards ‘ com m on l aw ’ part i es, t o incl ud e [C l em ents ]. ” R O A , D oc. 1 at 3. C l em ents ’ com plai nt further al l eged that M i l l er r el ay ed G ri er’ s st at em ents and threat s t o C l em ents , a n d th a t C lem e n ts f

e lt “e x to rte d ” to c o m p lyw ith “ ill e g a l o rd e rs” e n ter e d in th e d o m e stic re latio n s c a se . Id . at 4 . U lti m a tely , C lem e n ts a lleg e d , the se “ ill e g a l o rd e rs” w ro n g f u lly dep ri ved him of m on eyand “parenti ng t i m e w i th h i s progen y. . . . ” Id. B ased up on these a l l e g a t i o n s , Cl e me n t s a s s e r t e d v i o l a t i o n s o f 4 2 U. S . C. § § 1 9 8 3 , 1 9 8 5 a n d 1 9 8 6 , “ R. C. 1979” ( w hi ch he c har act er i zed i n hi s compl ai ntas author i zi ng “C i vi l damages for crim inal ac ts”), elev en fe d era l cri m inal statu tes (18 U . S . C . § § 2 4 1 , 2 4 2 , 5 7 2 , 8 7 2 , 8 7 5 (c), 1001, 1341, 1343, 1512, 1621, and 1951( b) ( 2) ) , and fourC ol or ado cr i m i nal s t atut es (C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § § 1 8 -3 -2 0 7 , 1 8 -5 -1 1 4 , 1 8 -8 -7 0 4 , a n d 1 8 -8 -7 0 7 ). D e f e n d a n ts re sp o n d e d to C lem e n ts’ c o m p lain t b yf ili n g se p a ra te m o tio n s to di s m i s s . D efe ndantG r i eral s o fi l ed a mot i on fors anct i ons pur s uantt o Feder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 11. O n J une 17, 2005, the magi s tr at e j udge i s s ued tw o r ecomm endat i ons r ecomm endi ng thatdefe ndant s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s be gr ant ed. M or e s peci fi cal l y , the m a g istra te ju d g e re c o m m e n d e d th a t (a ) a ll cla im s a risin g o u t o f th e iss u a n c e o f

o rd e rs in the s t at e domest i c r el at i ons cas e be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on-4-

pur s uantt o the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, ( b) al l cl ai m s as s ert ed aga i ns tG r i erand M i l l er pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 be di s m i s s ed due t o C l ement s ’ fai l ur e t o r eas onabl yal l ege th a t G rie r a n d M ill e r w e re sta te a c to rs o r th a t th e ya c ted in c o n c e rt w ith C h a p m a n , (c) a ll cl ai m s as s ert ed pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1985 and 1986 be di s m i s s ed due t o the c o mp l a i n t ’ s f

a i l u r e t o a l l e g e a n yr a c e o rc l a s s - b a s e d d i s c r i mi n a t o rya n i mu s , ( d ) a l l c l a i ms as s ert ed pur s uantt o “R . C . 1979” be di s m i s s ed as havi ng no bas i s i n the l aw , ( e) al l of the purpor t ed vi ol at i ons of fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es be di s m i s s ed on the gr ounds thatnone of th e c ited sta tu tes su p p o rte d a p riv a te r ig h t o f a c tio n , an d (f

) th e d istric t co u rt sh o u ld decl i ne t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overthe purpor t ed vi ol at i ons of C ol or ado s t a t e l a w. O n Ju ly2 2 , 2 0 0 5 , the d istri ct co u rtissue d an o rde r ad o p ti n g the m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i ons and di s m i s s i ng C l ement s ’ compl ai nti n i t s ent i r ety . O n A ugus t29, 2005, the di s tr i ctcourti s s ued an or dergr ant i ng defe ndantG r i er ’ s m ot i on forR ul e 11 sa n c tio n s a n d o rd e rin g C lem e n ts to p a y$ 5 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in sa n c tio n s. G rie r f iled se p a ra te no t i ces of ap peal fr om these tw o o rder s. II. Appeal N o. 05- 1362 In A p p e a l N o . 0 5 -1 3 6 2 , C lem e n ts a p p e a ls th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is compl ai nt . W e r evi ew de novo the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s por t i ons of Cl e ment s ’ c ompl a i ntfo rl a c k o f s ub j e c tmatt e rj ur i s di c t i on . Ci tyof A l bu qu e r qu e v. U . S. D ept . of I nt er i or , 379 F. 3d 901, 906 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . L i kew i s e, “[b] eca us e the-5-

su ff ici en cyo f a co m p lai n t i s a q u esti o n o f law , w e re v iew d e n o v o the d istri ct co u rt ’s g ran t of a m o ti o n to d ism iss pu rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 1 2 (b)(6 ), appl y i ng the s ame st andar ds as the di s tr i ctcourt . ” M oor e v. G uthr i e, 438 F. 3d 1036, 1039 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “Thati s , al l w el l - pl eade d fac tual al l egat i ons i n the . . . compl ai nt ar e ac cept ed as true and vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng party . ” I d. (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). Lack of s ubj ect m at t erj ur is di ct i on T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that , t o the ext entC l ement s ’ compl ai nts ought “r edr es s fori nj ur i es actual l yand pr oxi m at el ycaus ed bythe s t at e courtj udgm ent , the c la im s [ w e ]r e b a rr e d b yth e R o o k e r- F e ld m a n d o c tr in e .” R O A , D o c . 7 2 a t 5 . W e a g re e . T he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne pr ecl udes “l ow erfede r al court s . . . fr om exer ci s i ng appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overfi nal s t at e- courtj udgm ent s . ” Lance v. D enni s , 126 S. C t . 1198, 1201 ( 2006) . I n otherw or ds , the doctr i ne appl i es w her e, as her e, “a pa r tyi n eff ects eeks t o t ake a n appea l of an unf avor abl e s t at e- courtdeci s i on t o a l ow erfede r al court . ” I d. at 1202. T hus , w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed thos e port i ons of C l ement s ’ compl ai ntthat , i n eff ect , s oughtt o appea l unfavor abl e rul i ngs i s s ued by defe ndantC hapman i n the s t at e domest i c r el at i ons cas e. J u d icia l im m u n ity T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that , “[e ] ven i f the cl ai m s agai ns tD efe ndantC hapman w er e notbarr ed bythe R ooker - Fel dm an D octr i ne, theyw oul d be barr ed byj udi ci al im m u n ity .” R O A , D o c . 7 1 a t 4 n .3 (u n d e rlin in g a d d e d ). W e a g a in a g re e . It i s w e ll--6-

es t abl i s hed “that , gener al l y , a j udge i s i m m une fr om a s ui tform oneydamages . ” M i r el es v. W aco, 502 U . S. 9, 9 ( 1991) ( percur i am). T he doctr i ne of j udi ci al i m m uni tyens ur es “thata j udi ci al offi cer , i n exer ci s i ng the author i tyves t ed i n hi m , s hal l be fr ee t o actupon hi s ow n convi ct i ons , w i thoutappr ehens i on of per s onal cons equenc es t o hi m s el f. ” I d. at 10 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “‘ [J ] udi ci al i m m uni tyi s notover come by al l egat i ons of bad f

ai th orm al i ce . . . . ’ ” G ut tm an v. K hal s a, 446 F. 3d 1027, 1033- 34 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng M i r el es , 502 U . S. at12) . “O nl yacc us at i ons thata j udge w as n o t ac tin g in h is ju d icia l ca p a c ityo r th a t h e a c ted in th e c o m p lete a b se n c e o f a ll j ur i s di ct i on can ove r come abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . ” I d. at1034. H er e, as not ed bythe m agi s tr at e j udge, C l ement s ’ al l egat i ons agai ns tC hapman do notfal l w i thi n thi s l att er exce pt i on. R ather , C l ement s ’ al l egat i ons agai ns tC hapman ar e bas ed on ac t s s he p e rf o rm e d in h e r j u d ic ia l c a p a c ity a n d w ith in h e r j u ri s d ic tio n a s a s ta te m a g is tr a te ju d g e . T h u s, C h a p m a n is c lea rlye n tit led to ju d icia l im m u n ityf ro m C lem e n ts’ s u it. Sect i on 1983 clai m s agai ns tG r i erand Mi l l er T o the ext entthatC l ement s s oughtr el i ef a gai ns tdefe ndant s G r i erand M i l l erunder 42 U . S. C . § 1983, he w as obl i gat ed t o demonstr at e thattheyw er e ac t i ng “undercol orof stat e law . ” W est v . A tkins, 48 7 U . S . 4 2 , 4 8 (19 8 8 ). C lem en ts’ co m p lai n t, h o w ev er, a c k n o w led g e d th a t b o th G rie r a n d M ill e r w e re p riv a te a c to rs, i.e., atto rn e y s in p riv a te p ra c tice w h o w e re re tain e d b yC lem e n ts a n d h is e x -w if e to re p re se n t th e m in th e sta te d o m e stic re latio n s c a se . A lth o u g h C lem e n ts’ c o m p lain t als o m a d e f lee tin g re f

e re n c e s to G r i erand M i l l erhavi ng act ed i n conce r tw i th defe ndantC hapman, w e agr ee w i th theC l ement s r epea t edl yr efe r s i n hi s appel l at e pl eadi ngs t o “42 U . S. C . A . § 1979. ” 1 H ow ever , no s uch s t atut e exi s t s . L i ber al l ycons trui ng C l ement s ’ pl eadi ngs , w e conc l ude thathi s r efe r ence s t o “42 U . S. C . A . § 1979, ” i n combi nat i on w i th hi s addi t i onal r efe r ence s to “ R .C . 1 9 7 9 ” a n d “ R .S . 1 9 7 9 ,” a re in ten d e d to re f e r to R e v ise d S tatu te 1 9 7 9 (e n a c ted in 1874) , w hi ch i s now des i gnat ed as 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n the U ni t ed St at es C ode. See g en era ll yM ah o n e v . W ad d le, 5 6 4 F . 2 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 3 7 n . 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 7 ) (discu ssing h ist o ry o f § 1 9 8 3 ). -7- d istri ct co u rtthat tho se c o n clus o ryall eg ati o n s w ere insu ff ici en t t o sati sfythe “ stat e a ctor” r equi r ementof § 1983.

Sect i on 1985 and 1986 clai m s agai ns tG r i erand Mi l l er C l ement s ’ compl ai ntal s o purpor t ed t o as s ertcl ai m s agai ns tG r i erand M i l l erfor v i o l a t i o n s o f

4 2 U. S . C. § § 1 9 8 5 a n d 1 9 8 6 . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d , h o we v e r , a n d we agr ee a ft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d on appea l , thatC l ement s ’ compl ai nti s voi d of any all eg ati o n s o f ra cial or c lass-ba sed d iscri m inato ryan im u s o n the p art of G ri er a n d M il ler, as i s nece s s aryt o s uppor tthe cl ai m s agai ns tthem under§§ 1985 and 1986. See G r i ffi n v. B r ecke nr i dge, 403 U . S. 88, 102 ( 1971) ; St ei nertv. W i nn G r oup, I nc. , 440 F. 3d 1214, 1225 and n. 13 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T hus , C l ement s ’ compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m for r el i ef unde r§§ 1985 or1986. V i olat i ons of

f eder alcr i m i nals tat ut es T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded, and w e agr ee, thatnone of the fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es ci t ed byC l ement s i n hi s compl ai ntpr ovi de fora pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on. See gener al l yD i amond v. C har l es , 476 U . S. 54, 64- 65 ( 1986) ( not i ng thatpr i vat e ci t i zens c a n n o tc o mp e l e n f

o r c e me n to f

c r i mi n a l l a w) . Al th o u g h Cl e me n t s c o n t e n d s th a t4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 a u th o r i z e s h i m, a s a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n , t o p u r s u e v i o l a t i o n s o f f e d e r a l c r i mi n a l l a w, 1-8-

he i s cl ear l ym i s t aken. Sect i on 1983 cannot“fi l l the gap” forw hati s cl ear l yabs entfr om the fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es ci t ed byC l ement s , i . e. , the exi s t ence of a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac ti o n to en fo rce tho se statutes. S ee B lessing v . F ree ston e, 52 0 U . S . 3 2 9 , 3 4 0 (19 9 7 ) (“In or dert o s eek r edr es s thr ough § 1983, . . . a pl ai nt i ff mustas s ertthe vi ol at i on of a f eder al r ight , n o t m e re lya v io latio n o f f e d e ra l law . ”). T h u s, w e c o n clud e the d istri ct co u rt pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the port i on of C l ement s ’ compl ai ntas s ert i ng vi ol at i ons of fe der al c ri m in a l s ta tu te s . S ta t e la w c la i ms T he d i stri ctcou rtdecli ned t o ex erci se supplem ental j uri sdi ct i on ov er C l em ents ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m s w hi ch, as not ed, w er e al l bas ed on al l eged vi ol at i ons of C ol or ado cr i m i nal l aw . W e conc l ude ther e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on on the partof the di s tr i ct courti n doi ng s o. See 28 U . S. C . § 1367( c) ( 3) ( pr ovi di ng thata di s tr i ctcourtm aydecl i ne t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overa s t at e l aw cl ai m i f “the di s tr i ctcourthas d ism issed all claim s o v er w h ich it has o ri g inal juri sd ict ion ”). Appeal N o. 05- 1429 I n A ppeal N o. 05- 1429, C l ement s appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or dergr ant i ng defe ndantG r i er ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons underR ul e 11. W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e R ul e 11 s anct i ons . See D odd I ns . Servs . , I nc. v. R o y al Ins. C o . o f A m . , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ).

“ U n d e r R u le 1 1 , the p e rso n w h o sig n s a p lea d in g , m o tio n o r o th e r p a p e r f iled w ith the court , cert i fi es thathe ors he has conduct ed a r eas onabl e i nqui ryi nt o the fa ctual and-9-

l egal bas i s forthe fi l i ng, and thatthe s ubs t ance of the fi l i ng i s w el l - gr ounded i n fac tand l a w. ” Co f

f e yv . He a l th tru s t , I n c . , 9 5 5 F . 2 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 9 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c i t i n g F e d . R. C i v. P . 11 ). In order t o co m plyw i th R ule 11 an d av oid sanct i on s thereun der, a pro se party ’ s act i ons m us tbe obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e. W hi t e v. G en. M ot or s C orp. , 908 F. 2d 6 7 5 , 6 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); se e F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 1 (b ) (im p o sin g sa m e sta n d a rd o n b o th att o rne y s an d “u n rep rese n ted p art[ies]”). H e re , d e f

e n d a n t G rie r f

iled h e r m o tio n f

o r sa n c tio n s o n F e b ru a ry2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , w e ll pri or t o the di stri ctcou rtrul i ng on her m oti on t o d i sm i ss. In her m oti on for sanct i on s, G ri er not ed that , aft er r ecei ving a co pyof C l em ents ’ com plai nt, she sentC l em ents a

“ sa f e -h a rb o r/R u le 1 1 lette r” a d v isin g h im th a t h is c laim s a g a in st h e r w e re u n f o u n d e d in l aw orfac t , and thats he w oul d be s eeki ng s anct i ons i f he pe r s i s t ed i n pur s ui ng them. T he re c o rd in d ica tes th a t C lem e n ts e ss e n tiallyig n o re d th e lette r a n d c o n tin u e d to p u rsu e h is cl ai m s agai ns tG r i er . Fur ther , C l ement s fi l ed a w r i t t en r es pons e t o G r i er ’ s m ot i on for s anct i ons as s ert i ng thatanydefi ci enci es i n hi s compl ai ntw er e mer el yi ns i gni fi cant proced ural and / or typo graphic error s. I n addr es s i ng G r i er ’ s m ot i on fors anct i ons , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that , i n addi t i on t o bei ng advi s ed bydefe ndantG r i erthathi s cl ai m s w er e fr i vol ous , C l ement s had pr evi ous l ybeen “ w arned byth[e] C our tthathi s cl ai m s w er e fr i vol ous w hen hi s pr opos ed amended compl ai nt( w hi ch as s ert ed the s ame cl ai m s butatt empt ed t o add def endant M i l l er ’ s att orneyas a def endant ) w as r efus ed bec aus e i tw as pr ol i x and t edi ous and a s s e rt e d c la im s th a t a p p e a re d to b e f ri v o lo u s a n d v e x a tio u s .” R O A , D o c . 9 1 a t 1 1 .-10-

C o n ti n u ing , the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that “[ n ]o re aso n ab le pe rson in [ C lem en ts’ ] pos i t i on w oul d as s erttw entybas el es s cl ai m s i n fede r al courtagai ns tcouns el w ho oppos ed hi m i n a s t at e domest i c pr ocee di ng, es peci al l yaft erbei ng expr es s l yw arned by the att orneyand the courtthathi s cl ai m s w er e fr i vol ous . ” I d. at12. T hus , the di s tr i ct co u rtco n clud ed that “R u le 11 san cti o n s [w e]re a p p rop ri ate – n o t bec au se [ C lem en ts’ ] pro se C om plai nt dem on strat e[d] a m ere m i sund ers t and i ng of the l aw – b ut because [C l ement s ] [w a] s cl ear l ym ot i vat ed bya purpos eful des i r e t o har as s G r i er . ” I d. A ft er t aki ng i nt o acc ountC l ement s ’ fi nanci al s i tuat i on, as w el l as C l ement s ’ pas thi s t oryof fil ing b ase less law su it s, the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed “tha t a $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 san cti o n [w a]s nece s s aryt o det erfutur e mer i t l es s l i t i gat i on, w i thoutbei ng exce s s i ve. ” I d. at14. A f terc lo se lye x a m in in g th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l, w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e c id in g to im p o se R u le 1 1 sa n c tio n s a g a in st C lem e n ts, o r in s e l e c t i n g th e a m o u n to f th e s a n c t i o n . S e e A d a m s v . S t a t e o f N . M. , 9 3 0 F . 2 d 3 2 , 1 9 9 1 WL 35222 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( unpubl i s hed dec i s i on) ( aff i rm i ng i m pos i t i on of R ul e 11 s anct i ons di r ect i ng pr o s e pl ai nt i ff t o paythe def endant s ’ att orney s ’ fee s and cos t s i n the amountof $ 3 , 0 5 4 . 0 0 ). T he j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourti s A FFIRM E D . C l ement s ’ m ot i on t o pr ocee d on-11-

a p p e a l in f

o rm a p a u p e ris is D E N IE D . T h e m o tio n to strik e th e a p p e llan t’s b rie f is DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge