* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 5 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. ALBERTSON’S INC., a Delaware Corporation; JAMES A. HAUTZINGER; PAT HILDEBRAND; FRANK S. FELDMAN,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-1198 (D.C. No. 98-Z-1) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of1 Additionally, the court determined that Mr. Richard son’s complaint was

repetitious and frivolous, warranting limited sanct ions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Mr. Richardson does not appea l this aspect of the court’s order.

-2- 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. Plaintiff-appellant Robert Richardson brought suit in the district court claiming that Albertson’s Inc., one of its employee s, one of its attorneys, and an employee of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis sion had violated his civil rights in a prior case arising out of the ter mination of his employment with Albertson’s. He also asserted that the individual defendants had perjured themselves in that proceeding. Construing Mr. Richardson’s pro se pleadings liberally, see Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991), the distric t court concluded that he alleged a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a private, civil action for perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. It dism issed the complaint and cause of action with prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 1 After a thorough review of the record, we agree with the district court that Mr. Richardson failed to allege that defendants act ed under color of state law, as required for his § 1983 claim. See Jojola v. Chavez , 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir. 1995). We also agree that Mr. Richardson has no ci vil action for perjury,2 This appeal is the fourth in a series of actions ar ising from the termination

of Mr. Richardson’s employment with Albertson’s. See Richardson v. Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco Workers Local No. 26 , No. 98-1070, 1998 WL 514587 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 1998) (affirming dismissal of c ivil rights action against Mr. Richardson’s union, union officials, and attorney for the union); Richardson v. Albertson’s, Inc. , No. 96-1036, 1996 WL 421977 (10th Cir. July 29, 1 996), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1551 (1996) (affirming the district co urt’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Albertson’s on Title V II and ADA claims); Richardson v. Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco Workers, Local No. 26 , No. 95-1518, 1996 WL 422070 (10th Cir. July 29, 1996) ( affirming the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the union on racial discrimination claims). -3- because, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, an unsuccessful litigant may not maintain a civil action against a person who allegedly committed perjury. See Advantor Capital Corp. v. Yeary , 136 F.3d 1259, 1263 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Morgan v. Graham , 228 F.2d 625, 627 (10th Cir. 1956)). We affirm f or substantially the reasons expressed by the districtcourt in its order of May 1,
1998. At this time, we decline to impose sanctions and th erefore deny appellees' motion for sanctions on appeal. We emphasize, howe ver, that “[t]his court has the power to impose sanctions such as costs, attorn ey fees, and double costs for the filing of frivolous appeals.” Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1985) (imposing double costs on a pro se litigant). Because Mr. Richardson's repetitive filings must come to an end, 2 we warn him that any additional frivolous and repetitious filings may re sult in the imposition of sanctions.-4-

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge