## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT

E D D IE L . A N D R E W S , an in d iv id u a l, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J OE HEAT ON, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; J OHN C. P O R F ILIO , an indi vidual ; P A U L J. K E L L Y , a n in d iv id u a l; C A R L O S F
. LUC ERO , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; TERREN CE L. O' BR I E N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; T I M OT HY T YM KOVI CH , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; WADE BR OR BY , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; E L I S AB E T H A. S HUMAKER , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; D. WAYNE L E E , an i ndi vi dual ; J A N E T W R I G H T , an i ndi vi dual ; J O SE PH W
. H A R R I S, an i ndi vi dual ; T R A V I S W H I T E , an i ndi vi dual ; A N G E L A T A R R O N , an i ndi vi dual ; D A V I D L
. R U SSE L L , an i ndi vi dual ; M E L A N I E L E SL E Y , an i ndi vi dual ; R O B I N C A U T H R O N , an i ndi vi dual ; J O SE PH ST R E A L Y , an i ndi vi dual ; T I M O T H Y D
. L E O N A R D , an i n d i v i d u a l ; VI CK I M I LES- LAG RA NG E, an i ndi vi dual ; ST E PH E N P. FR I O T , an i ndi vi dual ; R A L PH G
. T H O M PSO N , an in d iv id u a l; L E E R . W E S T , an in d iv id u a l; DOYL E W. AR GO, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; BA NA R O B E R T S , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; G A R Y M. P UR CE L L , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; VAL E RI E K. C O U C H , a n in d iv id u a l; R O B E R T E
. BA CH AR AC H, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RO NA LD L. HO W LAN D, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; SHO N T. E RWI N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RO BE RT D. D EN N I S, a n i nd i vi du a l ; LI SA BO LD S, a n in d iv id u a l; P A T R IC K J . F IS H E R , J R ., N os . 06- 6215, 06- 6253, 06- 6279- 2-

an i ndi vi dual ; D E B R A ST R U C K , an i n d i v i d u a l ; DE ANE L L RE E CE T AC HA, a n in d iv id u a l; W IL L IA M J
. H O L L O W A Y , JR ., a n in d iv idu a l; R O B E R T H
. M cW I L L I A M S, an i ndi vi dual ; M O N R O E G
. M cK A Y , an i n d i v i d u a l ; S TE P HAN I E K. S EYM OUR, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; S T E P HE N H. AND ERS ON, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; BOBBY R. B A L D O C K , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; D A V I D M. E BE L , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RO BE RT H. HENRY, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M ARY BECK BRI S COE, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M I CHAEL R
. M U RPH Y , a n i nd i vi du a l ; H A RR I S L H A R T Z , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; MI C H A E L W. M c CO NN ELL, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; DR EW E DM ONDS ON, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M AR T HA R. KULM ACZ, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; HOW ARD H. HENDRI CK, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RI CHARD W . F R E E M A N , JR ., a n in d iv id u a l; C H A R L E S L . W A T E R S , an in d iv id u a l; N A N C Y V O N B A R G E N , an in d iv id u a l; DO UG HO UG HT, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; GA LE F
. S MI T H , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; T H O MA S M. BARTHE LD, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; DAN NY R. DEAVER, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; W I NFORD M I KE WARR E N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; KAL YN C
. F R E E , an ind ividu al; C H R IS WI L S ON, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CH E RY L CER DA, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CHUCK C O U R T S , an ind ividu al; E R IC YA RBO UR OU GH , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RI TA P EL OQU I N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; LAURA T O R B E T T , an ind ividu al; K E V IN OPEN HO USE, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; J AM ES P H Y L L IE R , an ind ividu al; D A V ID CU M M I NS, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; GLEN DR E S BA CK , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; T OM PI XTO N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; FAY E SM AR T, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CA RO LYN HA THC OA T,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 unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a s e is th e re fo re 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.

- 3- an i ndi vi dual ; C E L O H A R R E L , an i ndi vi dual ; J O H N W A M PL E R , an i ndi vi dual ; ST E PH E N B R O O K S, an i ndi vi dual ; J A Q U E L I N E D U N C A N , an i ndi vi dual ; PH Y L L I S D E N N E Y , an i ndi vi dual ; PA T V E R ST E E G , an i ndi vi dual ; D O U G L A S E
. C R E SSL E R , an in d iv id u a l; L . B A L L Y , an in d iv id u a l; R H O N D A R E Y N O L D S , an in d iv id u a l; SH A W N A FA H R E N T H O L D , an i ndi vi dual ; D E N I SE G E R H O L D , an i ndi vi dual ; J E R R Y L
. A N D R E W S, an i ndi vi dual ; T R A C I I A N D R E W S, an i ndi vi dual ; PA U L E T T E SC H U L T Z , an in d iv id u a l; D A N D E V E R S , an in d iv id u a l; a n d G A IL S M IT H , an in d iv idu a l, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ctC ourt fo r t h e W e s t e r n Di s t r i c t Ok l a h o ma (D . C . N o s. C IV -06 -51 0 -W F D a n d C IV -06 -65 2 -W F D )
S ub m i tt ed o n the bri efs. * E ddi e L. A ndr ew s , Pr o Se. L i nda Soper , A s s i s t antA tt orneyG ener al , O kl ahoma A tt orneyG ener al ’ s O ffi ce, O k lah o m a C ity , O k lah o m a ; M a rth a R . K u lm a c z , A ss ista n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, Offi c e o f

Att o rn e yGe n e r a l , Ok l a h o ma Ci ty , Ok l a h o ma ; De b o r a h J
. Gr o o m, A ssi st ant U nit ed S t at es A tt orney , F ortS m i th, A rkansas; Joseph W
. H arr i s, T uls a O kl ahoma; R i char d W
. Fr eeman, A s s i s t antG ener al C ouns el , D epartm entofT he H onor abl e M ar ci a S. K r i eger , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe ** D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on.

- 4- H um an Servi ces , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma; J ohn M
. W ampl er , D i s tr i ct At t o rn e y , Gr e e rCou n ty , M a n g u m, Okl a h o ma ; Pa tr i c kO’ Har a , J r . , a n d Br i a n L. C r amer , W hi tt en, N el s on, M cG ui r e, T erry& R os el i us , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma; and G l en L
. D res back , A l tus, O klahom a, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.
B efor e GORS UCH , andHO LM ES , C i r cui tJ udges , and KR I EGER , D i s tr i ct J udge. **
GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.
T hi s cas e i nvol ves thr ee appeal s and an a rr ayof appe l l at e mot i ons fi l ed by E ddi e L. A ndr ew s ar i s i ng fr om tw o fede r al l aw s ui t s he br oughts eeki ng t o compel fe d e ra l ju d g e s to e njo in s ta te c o u rtp ro c e e d in g s a n d o b ta in d a m a g e s f ro m th e m . A pr i ors ui tfi l ed byM r . A ndr ew s r egar di ng the s ame subj ectm att err es ul t ed i n an addi t i onal tw o appea l s befor e thi s court . A s w i th thatfi r s tl aw s ui t , w e now concl ude thatM r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd a nd thi r d l aw s ui t s ar e w i thoutm er i tand
w e re p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d b yth e d istric t co u rt. M r. A n d re w s’s c o m p lain ts
curr ent l ybefor e us s uffe rfr om s ever al fat al defe ct s ; among ot herthi ngs , they
s e e kt o a s s e rtc l a i m s a g a i n s td e fe n d a n t s e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e j u d i c i a l i m m u n i ty, fai l t o m eetthe hei ght ened pl eadi ng r equi r ement s of R ul e 9( b) of the Feder al R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , an d se e kto e n fo rc e c rim in a l sta tu tes th ro u g h a c iv il act i on. B ecaus e of the vexa t i ous natur e of M r . A ndr ew s ’ s fi l i ngs , the di s tr i ctD efen d an ts Jose p h H arris an d P au lette S ch u ltz m aintain th at M r. 1 A n d re w s n e v e r p ro p e rlya p p e a led in O k lah o m a c o u rts to re g a in c u sto d yo f h is chi l d orobt ai n vi s i t at i on r i ght s . I n addi t i on, theym ai nt ai n thatM r . A ndr ew s has notm ade a nyof hi s court - or der ed chi l d s upportpaym ent s ( orpr oper l ys ought m odi fi cat i on of the chi l d s upportor der ) and, as a r es ul t , has an ext antw arr antfor fel on ychil d sup po rtcharges. W e need no tadd res s, l etal on e res olve, anyof these cont ent i ons her e.

- 5- c o u rt im p o se d re stric tio n s o n M r. A n d re w s’s a b ili tyto p u rsu e a d d iti o n a l pro se fi l i ng s i n the W est ern D i stri ctof O klahom a. W e m od i fythese restri ct i on s, li m it ing them in sc o p e to fil ing s related to the su bject m att er o f M r. A n d rew s’s th r e e r e l a t e d fe d e r a l l a ws u i t s , b u twe a l s o e x t e n d th e m t o p r e c l u d e M r . An d r e ws f ro m filin g a d d itio n a l a p p e a ls in th e s e o r f u tu re re la te d c a s e s . I A lth o u g h it i s d ifficu lt t o d isc e rn f ro m th e re c o rd , the se a p p e a ls a p p e a r to have thei ror i gi n i n a 2001 dec i s i on bythe O kl ahoma D epartm entof H um an S erv ices (“D H S ”) to inv esti g ate c o m p lai n ts r eg ard ing v ariou s ch il d ren in M r. An d r e ws ’ s c a r e , a tl e a s to n e o f wh o m ap p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n h i s d a u g h t e r . DHS ul t i m at el ydeci ded thatthe chi l dr en s houl d be pl ace d i n pr ot ect i ve cus t odyand then fos t ercar e, and thatM r . A ndr ew s s houl d be deni ed cus t odyand vi s i t at i on
r i ght s t o hi s daught er( and pot ent i al l ythe otherchi l dr en as w el l )
. I tappea r s that M r . A ndr ew s s oughtt o r egai n cus t odythr ough s om e s ortof s t at e courtpr ocee di ng b u t g re w f

ru stra ted a n d e v e n tu a llyso u g h t re c o u rse in fe d e ra l co u rt. 1- 6-

M r. A n d re w s ’s fir s t fe d e ra l c a s e in th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a , C IV -05-110 , nam ed v ari ou s fam i l ym em bers and thr ee D H S agen t s as defend ants ; al l eged a cri m i nal conspir acyand viol at i on of h i s procedu ral du e process r i gh t s; and s oughtt o enj oi n undefi ned s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs w hi ch, as bes tthe di s tr i ct
courtcoul d di s cern, appea rt o have i nvol ved a non- partyt o the l aw s ui t . Feder al di s tr i ctcourtJ udge J oe H eat on di s m i s s ed M r . A ndr ew s ’ s cl ai m s , hol di ng that
m o st o f th e a lleg a tio n s fe ll o u tsid e th e re lev a n t sta tu te o f lim itatio n s a n d th a t a fede r al courthad nei therthe author i tyt o enj oi n the pr ocee di ngs of an i ndepende nt
so v e re ig n ju d icia l sy ste m u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s n o r th e a u th o rityto e njo in part i es M r . A ndr ew s had notnamed as defe ndant s . M r . A ndr ew s ’ s cas e r es ul t ed i n tw o appea l s t o thi s court( fi l ed on the s ame dat e) , w hi ch w er e r es ol ved t ogether and affi rm ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s cas e. M r . A ndr ew s then fi l ed hi s s econd feder al l aw s ui ti n the W es t ern D i s tr i ct of O kl ahoma, C I V
- 06- 510, nami ng s om e 21 defendant s , i ncl udi ng al l of the fe d e r a l d i s tr i c ta n d a p p e l l a t e j u d g e s wh o h a d i s s u e d o r d e r s a d v e r s e t o h i m,
m e m b e rs o f

th e ir sta ffs, a n d “ Jo h n a n d Ja n e D o e s 1 th ro u g h 1 9 9 .” T h is la w su it al l eged, among ot herthi ngs , thatthe named defe ndant s had ent er ed i nt o a
cr i m i nal cons pi r acyt o depr i ve M r . A ndr ew s of hi s r i ght s and def r aud the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of the R acke t eerI nfl uence d and C orruptO r gani zat i ons A ct (“ R IC O ” ), 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 , ets eq .A di s tr i ctcourtm aydi s m i s s a ca s e su a sp o n te u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le C iv il 2 P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b ) “ w h e n it i s ‘p a ten tlyo b v io u s’ th a t th e p lain tiff c o u ldn o t p re v a il o n th e fa c ts a lle g e d .” McKin n ey v . S ta te o f O kla ., D e

p t. o f Hu m a n Se r vs ., Sh a wn e e OK , 925 F. 2d 363, 365 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( ci t i ng B akerv. D i r . , U
. S. P a ro le C o m m ’n , 9 1 6 F .2 d 7 2 5 , 7 2 7 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 0 ); Huxal lv. Fi rs tState Bank , 8 4 2 F .2 d 2 4 9 , 2 4 9 n .2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ))
.

- 7- T h e c lai m s ag ains t th e fed era l j u d g es a n d co u rtem p loy ee d efen d an ts w ere di s m i s s ed su a sp o n te byJ udge D avi d L
. R us s el l on M ay17, 2006, becaus e, the 2
courthel d, thes e defendant s w er e ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni tyforthe al l eged c onducti n the compl ai nt . R egar di ng the cl ai m s agai ns tthe other defe ndant s , J udge R us s el l hel d thatthe cl ai m s forvi ol at i ons of cr i m i nal s t atut es
we r e n o te n fo r c e a b l e i n a p r i v a t e c i v i l a c t i o n , th e ( g e n e r o u s l yr e a d ) c i v i l RI CO claim s fa il ed to co m p lyw ith the h eigh tene d p lead ing req u ir em en ts of R u le 9(b ), and ther e w er e no al l egat i ons r egar di ng anyact s bythe J ohn and J ane D oe defe ndant s . J udge R us s el l i ns truct ed M r . A ndr ew s thati f he w i s hed t o pr ocee d
w ith h is l aw su ith e sh o u ld fil e a n am en d ed co m p lai n t w ith in 2 0 d ay s. M r. A n d re w s d id n o t d o s o . I ns t ead, on M ay30, 2006, M r . A ndr ew s fi l ed a mot i on t o vaca t e Judge R us s el l ’ s or der , w hi ch w as deni ed on June 12, 2006. U ndet err ed, fourday s l at er M r. A n d re w s a p p e a led Ju d g e R u ss e ll’s ru lin g a n d filed a th ird fe d e ra l law su it i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, C I V
- 06- 652. T hi s thi r d s ui tl i s t ed more than 8 0 d efen d an ts, inclu d ing all o f th e the n -si tt ing jud g es o f th e T en th C ir cu itC o u rtA s p a rt o f h is s e c o n d law su it, M r. A n d re w s a lso filed th re e se p a ra te 3 mo t i o n s t o s tr i k e a n d two mo t i o n s t o r e c u s e o rd i s q u a l i f yi n J u n e 2 0 0 6 , two m o tio n s to strik e in Ju ly2 0 0 6 , o n e m o tio n to strik e in A u g u st 2 0 0 6 , o n e m o tio n to s tr i ke i n Sept ember2006, and a mot i on t o “D emand thi s C ourtR ead A l l Pl eadi ngs Pl ai nt i ff Fi l es W i th T hi s C ourt , and A dher e O nl yt o C ons t i tut i onal l yC om pl i ant L a w a n d C a se L a w , an d M o re P a rticu lar ly , T h e B ill o f R ig h ts in its R u lin g s” in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 6
. J udge D ow nes w as al s o as ked t o s i tbydes i gnat i on t o pr es i de overthe 4 r emai nderof M r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd l aw s ui t . A l though J udge R us s el l had al r eady effect i vel ydi s m i s s ed M r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd c om pl ai nt , j udgm enthad noty et b e e n e n ter e d in th e se c o n d law su it, p re su m ab lyb e c a u se th e 2 0 -d a yp e rio d to file an am en d ed co m p lai n t had b ee n toll ed w h il e the d istri ct co u rtco n side red M r. An d r e ws ’ s mo t i o n t o v a c a t e . J u d g e Do wn e s p r o c e e d e d t o c o n s o l i d a t e th e two c a se s a n d th e n d ism iss e d th e c o n so lid a ted law su it. T h is s e q u e n c e o f e v e n ts cr eat es s om e conf

us i on i n the r ecor d becaus e Judge D ow nes ’ s or deri n the cons ol i dat ed ca s e t echni cal l yappea r s t o “r edi s m i s s ” the al r eadydi s m i s s ed s econd compl ai nt . T her e ar e atl eas ttw o pl aus i bl e expl anat i ons forthi s appar ent di s cr epanc y . Fi r s t , J udge D ow nes tr eat ed the thi r d compl ai ntas i f i tw er e the amended compl ai ntJ udge R us s el l had or der ed t o be fi l ed, or , m or e l i kel y , J udge D ow nes ’ s or ders i m pl yaddr es s ed the onl ycl ai m s r emai ni ng i n the cons ol i dat ed la w s u it, i
. e. , the c lai m s co n tai n ed in the thir d co m p lai n t. N o n e o f th is, h o w ev er, i s m at er i al t o ourdeci s i on.

- 8- of A ppeal s , al l of the j udges and magi s tr at es i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma,
a great m any m em bers of j ud i ci al st aff, t og ether w i th several pri vate att orney s. 3 Si m i l art o hi s fi r s ttw o compl ai nt s , M r . A ndr ew s ’ s thi r d compl ai ntal l eged a vag ue y etvastcri m i nal conspir acy . G i ven that everyl ocal j ud ge w as nam ed as a defe ndant , the ca s e w as as s i gned t o J udge W i l l i am F
. D ow nes , a fe der al j udge fro m the D istri ct of

W y o m ing
. Ju d g e D o w n es d ism issed all o f M r. A n d rew s’s
re m a in in g c laim s b e c a u se , the c o u rt h e ld , M r. A n d re w s w a s (a g a in ) im p e rm iss ib ly att em p ti n g to en fo rce crim inal statu tes th rou g h a p ri v ate c ivil ac ti o n . In 4
a d d iti o n , Ju d g e D o w n e s e sta b lish e d p ro c e du re s fo r M r. A n d re w s to o b tainA lth o u g h it i s d ifficu lt t o d isc e rn f ro m h is fili n g s, in ju st o v e r a m o n th 5 b etw ee n the in it iat ion o f h is th ir d law su itan d Ju d g e D o w n es’s o rde rs cons ol i dat i ng and di s m i s s i ng thatcas e, M r . A ndr ew s appea r s t o have f i l ed a p p r o x i ma t e l yfi v e mo t i o n s fo rs u mm a ryj u d g me n t , th r e e mo t i o n s t o s tr i k e , two m ot i ons fordefaul tj udgm ent , thr ee mot i ons t o r ecus e ordi s qual i fy , and one obj ect i on t o an entryof appe ar ance . Subse quent l y , i n the al m os ttw o m onths betw een M r . A ndr ew s ’ s fi l i ng of the mot i on t o r econs i derJ udge D ow nes ’ s or der and Judge D ow nes ’ s deni al of thator der , M r . A ndr ew s fi l ed an a ddi t i onal ei ght s e lf-s tyle d m o tio n s a n d o bje c tio n s in th a t c a s e .

- 9- p e rm iss io n f

ro m th e c o u rt b e fo re in iti a tin g a n ya d d iti o n a l pro se l aw s ui t s i n the We s t e rn Di s tr i c to f

Ok l a h o ma . F i n a l l y , J u d g e Do wn e s c a u t i o n e d M r . An d r e ws abo ut bri ng i ng ano ther round of fri vo l ou s app eal s t o this cou rt . M r. A nd rew s, 5 h o w e v e r, p ro m p tly ap p e a le d
. A l l t ol d, M r . A ndr ew s has br oughta t ot al of fi ve appe al s i n thr ee feder al la w s u its , th re e o f

w h ic h re la te to h is s e c o n d a n d th ir d la w s u its a t is s u e h e re . A l tho ug h iti s oft en d i ffi cultt o d i scern from his pleadi ng s, M r. A nd rew s appea rs , atthe veryl eas t , t o cont es tbefor e us J udge R us s el l ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s s econd
co m p lai n t; Ju d g e D o w n es’s o rde r dism issi n g the th ir d co m p lai n t; an d o u r ord ers of A ugus t7, 2006, and A ugus t18, 2006, abat i ng M r . A ndr ew s ’ s appea l s of Judge R us s el l ’ s and Judge D ow nes ’ s di s m i s s al or der s w hi l e hi s m ot i on t o r econs i der Ju d g e D o w n e s’s d ism iss a l o rd e r w a s p e n d in g in th e d istric t co u rt. In a d d iti o n to h i s a p p e a l s o n th e me r i t s o f th e s e ru l i n g s , M r . An d r e ws h a s a l s o l o d g e d two
m ot i ons s eeki ng t o i ns t i tut e “atr i bunal of s peci al m as t er s w ho ar e notnow , nor h a v e th e ye v e r b e e n fe d e ra l circ u it j u d g e s o r m e m b e rs o f a n yb a r” to h e a r h is- 10-

cas es . B ey ond even thi s , M r . A ndr ew s has s ubm i tt ed t o us tw o s et s of obj ect i ons to o u r o rd e rs a b a tin g h is a p p e a ls w h ile th e d istric t co u rt re so lv e d h is m o tio n to reconsi der; three m oti on s for defau l tj ud gm ent; a m oti on t o stri ke a d efen se
m oti on ; and tw o m oti on s t o stri ke the vari ou s A pp el l ees’ s O pen i ng B ri efs becau se defe ns e couns elof r ecor d, w ho i ncl ude an A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A tt orney , thr ee Ok l a h o maAs s i s t a n tAtt o rn e yGe n e r a l s , a n d a n As s i s t a n tGe n e r a l Co u n s e l o f DHS (th e latte r fo u r a tto rn e y s a re a lso n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts in th is m a tter) , are a lleg e d ly i m pr oper“i nt er l oper s ” i n thi s m att erw i thoutauthor i tyt o r epr es entthe defe nd ants . II W e r ead pro se co m p lai n ts m o re li b era ll ythan tho se c o m p o sed b ylaw y ers and di s m i s s them onl yw hen i tappea r s “bey ond doubtthatthe pl ai nt i ff c an pr ove
no s etof fa ct s i n s upportof hi s cl ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef. ” Hai nes
v. Kerner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 1 (1 9 7 2 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). A s e x ten siv e ly elab o rated b ythe d istri ct co u rtjud g es w h o h av e a d d resse d M r. A n d rew s’s law su its, h is fe d e ra l cla im s a re w ith o u t m e rit an d w e re p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d in
a c c o rd w ith th is s te e p s ta n d a rd
. Fi r s t , di s m i s s al of the cl ai m s agai ns tthe j udi ci al defe ndant s w as pr oper becaus e i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that“[a ] bs ol ut e i m m uni tybar s s ui t s form oney damages foract s m ade i n the exe r ci s e of pr os ecut or i al orj udi ci al di s cr et i on. ” G uttm an v. Kha lsa , 446 F. 3d 1027, 1033 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng Mi r eles v. Waco ,- 11-

5 0 2 U .S . 9 , 1 3 (1 9 9 1 )). G iv e n th a t M r. A n d re w s a lleg e s th e ju d icia l d e fe n d a n ts eng aged i n u nco nst i tuti on al con du cton l yw hil e presi ding ov er hi s ci vil l aw sui t s, th e se d e fe n d a n ts “ w e re p e rfo rm in g ju d icia l ac ts a n d w e re th e re fo re c lo th e d w ith abs ol ut e j udi ci al i m m uni ty . ” Hu n t v. B e n n e tt , 1 7 F
. 3 d 1 2 6 3 , 1 2 6 6 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); see also Lundahlv. Zi m m er , 296 F. 3d 936, 939 ( 10th C i r . 2002) ( ext endi ng j udi ci al i m m uni tyt o “anyj udi ci al offi cerw ho act s t o ei ther[( 1) ] r es ol ve di s put es b e tw e e n p a rties o r [ (2 )] a u th o ritativ e lya dju d ica te p riv a te r ig h ts.” (in ter n a l q u o te
a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ))
. Second, even r eadi ng M r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd feder al compl ai ntas gener ous l yas pos s i bl e, di s m i s s al of M r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd c om pl ai ntw as pr oper b ec au se h is va g u e a n d co n clus o ryall eg ati o n s o f f rau d fa il ed to co m e a n yw h ere
n e a r s a tis f

y in g th e s p e c ific ity re q u ir e m e n ts o f F e d e ra l R u le C iv il P ro c e d u re 9 (b ). See Caym an Explor at i on C or p. v. Uni ted G as P i

pe Li ne C o. , 873 F. 2d 1357, 1362 ( 10th C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng thatR ul e 9( b) r equi r es thatR I C O pr edi cat e ac t s bas ed
o n f ra u d m u st b e p led w ith sp e c ificityto p ro v id e c lea r n o tice o f th e fa c tu a l b a sis of the pr edi cat e ac t s t o defe ndant s )
. J udge R us s el l expr es s l ynot ed thi s pl eadi ng d e ficie n c yfo r M r. A n d re w s a n d in v ited h im to file a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w ith th e r e q u i s i t e RI CO c a s e s t a t e me n ta n d g r e a t e rs p e c i fi c i ty , s o me th i n g M r . An d r e ws d e c lin e d to d o .T o the ext entthatM r . A ndr ew s as s ert s a quitam ac ti o n in h is th ir d 6 compl ai nt , thi s cl ai m al s o i s m er i t l es s becaus e q u ita m act i ons cover“‘ fr audul ent att empt s t o caus e the G o v e rn m e n t to p ay o u t s um s of m oney . ’ ” Uni ted States ex r el
. B ahr aniv. C onagr a, Inc. , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (e m p h a sis added) ( quot i ng Uni ted States v. Nei f er t- Whi te C o. , 3 9 0 U .S . 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 -3 3 (1 9 6 8 ))
. B yc o n tra st, M r. A n d re w s a lleg e s o n lyth a t th e d e fe n d a n ts h a v e im p ro p e rly depr i vedh i m o f

s u m s in e x c e s s o f

o n e m illio n d o lla rs . W e h av e re v iew ed as w ell the m an yan d v ariou s m o ti o n s filed b yM r. 7 A ndr ew s i n connec t i on w i th hi s pendi ng appea l s and fi nd them equal l yw i thout (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 12- T hi r d, M r . A ndr ew s ’ s s econd c om pl ai ntfai l s t o i ncl ude anyal l egat i ons
r egar di ng anyact s bythe unnamed J ohn and J ane D oe defendant s , and, ther efor e, d ism issal of

thes e d efen d an ts w as p rop er. F inally , d ism issal of

M r. A n d rew s’s claim s in h is seco n d an d thir d compl ai nt s al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 241, 371, 1001, 1341, and 1503,
an d 2 6 U
. S
. C
. § 7 2 1 4 (a)(1), ( 2 ), (7), an d (8), w as p rop er b ec au se th ese are
cr i m i nal s t atut es thatdo notpr ovi de fora pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on and ar e thus not
e n fo rc e a b le th ro u g h a c iv il a c tio n . See Un itedS ta tes v . C la fli n , 97 U
. S. 546, 547 (1 8 7 8 ) ( “ T h a t a c t c o n te m p la te d a c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g , a n d n o t a c iv il a c tio n . . . . I ti s obvi ous , ther efor e, thati t s pr ovi s i ons cannotbe enfor ced byanyci vi l act i on

. . . . ” ); Sc h mel i n gv . NO RDAM , 97 F. 3d 1336, 1344 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( “[W ] e fi nd no evi dence thatC ongr es s i nt ended t o cr eat e the r i ghtof ac t i on as s ert ed by S ch m eli n g , an d w e co n clud e that su ch a ri g h t d o es n o t ex ist
. ”). 6 A cc o rdin g ly , w e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issals of M r. A n d rew s’s l aw sui t s. 7(
. . . cont i nued) 7 m e rit.

- 13- III Feder al court s have the i nher entpow ert o r egul at e the ac t i vi t i es of abus i ve litig a n ts b yim p o s in g c a re f u lly ta ilo re d re s tr ic tio n s in a p p ro p ri a te c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Si eve rdi ng v. C olo. B arA s s ’ n. , 4 6 9 F .3 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Trip a ti
v. B eam an , 878 F. 2d 351, 352 ( 10th C i r . 1989)
. Speci fi cal l y , i nj unct i ons
r es tr i ct i ng furtherfi l i ngs ar e appr opr i at e w her e the l i t i gant ’ s l engthyand abus i ve h isto ryis s e t fo rth ; th e c o u rt p ro v id e s g u id e lin e s a s to w h a t th e lit ig a n t m a yd o to obt ai n i t s perm i s s i on t o fi l e an a ct i on; and the l i t i gantr ece i ves not i ce a nd an
o p p o rtu n ity to o p p o s e th e c o u rt ’s o rd e r b e fo re it is im p le m e n te d
. Se e Trip a ti , 878 F. 2d at353- 54. A s partof hi s or derdi s m i s s i ng M r . A ndr ew s ’ s cons ol i dat ed l aw s ui t , J udge D ow nes enjoi ned M r. A nd rew s fr om fi l i ng anyfurther l aw sui t s pr o s e i n the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma w i thoutfi r s tobt ai ni ng perm i s s i on of the C hi ef J udge; the or der , byi t s t erm s , does notaffectM r . A ndr ew s ’ s r i ghtt o pur s ue
a c tio n s o f

a n yk in d w ith th e b e n e fit o f c o u n se l. S til l, alth o u g h it i s b e y o n d c a v il that M r. A nd rew s has a hi st oryof v exati ou s pr o s e fil ing s an d the d istri ct co u rt pr ovi ded a mechani s m byw hi ch M r . A ndr ew s m ayr ece i ve appr oval forfutur e pro
se fil ing s, w e a re inc li n ed to think the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er m igh t be m o re
narr ow l yt ai l or ed, atl eas ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance . M r . A ndr ew s ’ s abus i ve pro se- 14-

fili n g h isto ryis lim ited to p lea d in g s filed in re latio n to sta te, a n d th e n fe d e ra l,
cou rtproceed i ng s r egardi ng the care and cust od yof h i s chi l d(r en), and against st at e and fede ral go vernm ent offi ci al s and p ri vate att orney s r el at ed to these
m a tters . T h is h isto ryd o e s n o t (a t lea st a s y e t) su g g e st th a t M r. A n d re w s is lik e ly to ab u se th e leg al pro ce ss in c o n n ec ti o n w ith o ther p erso n s an d su bject m att ers and thus does nots upportr es tr i ct i ng M r . A ndr ew s ’ s acc es s t o the court s i n a ll futur e pro se pr ocee di ngs pert ai ni ng t o any s ubj ectm att erand any d e fe n d a n t. See, e. g. , Si eve rdi ng , 469 F. 3d at1345 ( “[T] her e i s no appar entbas i s for ext endi ng [a s i m i l aradvanc e r evi ew of pro se fi l i ngs ] r es tr i ct i on t o i ncl ude any
s ubj ectm att erand anyparty[bec aus e] M s . Si ever di ng has notfi l ed l i t i gat i on ag ains t r an d o m p erso n s o r en ti ti es.”). T h e fil ing restri cti o n s im p o sed o n M r. A nd rew s bythe d i stri ctcou rtare therefore m od i fi ed to cov er onl yfi l i ng s i n these
orfutur e mat t er s r el at ed t o the s ubj ectm att erof M r . A ndr ew s ’ s thr ee feder al la w s u its
. Se e id
. ( appr ovi ng of s i m i l arr es tr i ct i ons as a fi r s tr es pons e t o abus i ve fili n g s); se e a lso g e n e ra lly Van Si ckle v. Hol low ay , 7 9 1 F .2 d 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 7 (1 0 th C i r . 1986) ( pr ohi bi t i ng the fi l i ng of compl ai nt s that“cont ai n the s ame ors i m i l ar
a lleg a tio n s a s th o se se t fo rth in h is c o m p lain t in th e c a se a t b a r” ); Shuf f m an v. Ha r tfo rdTex tile C o r

p . (In r e Ha r tfo rdTex tile C o r p .) , 681 F. 2d 895, 897- 98 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ) (b a rrin g f

u rth e r p lea d in g s in th a t ca se o r in f u tu re lit ig a tio n w ith
re g a rd to th e sa m e c laim s o r su bjec t m a tter) ; Ju ddv . Un i v . o f N
. M. , 149 F. 3d 1 1 9 0 , 1 9 9 8 W L 3 1 4 3 1 5 , at * 5 (10 th C ir
. Ju n e 2 , 1 9 9 8 ) (un p u b
. ) (“[T ]his co u rtI n r eac hi ng ourconcl us i on on thi s s cor e w e, of cour s e, do nothol d, or 8 rem o tel ym ea n to su g g est, that b roa d er pro se fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons can neve rbe ju s tifie d e v e n a s a n in itia l m a tte r. T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derr equi r i ng advanc e r evi ew of pro se fi l i ngs 9 s ugges t s , atone poi nt , thati tappl i es t o pr opos ed ap p e a ls
. D i s t . C t . O r derof J ul y26, 2006, at9. T h e o rd e r e lse w h e re c lar ifies , h o w e v e r, th a t itp e rta in s o n ly to filin g s in th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a . Id
. a t 9 , 1 1 . In a n ye v e n t, i t is se ttl e d in th is c irc u it th a t “[ i]t is u n re a so n a b le fo r [ a d istric t co u rt] to a ttem p t to l i m i tacc es s t o thi s courtoranyothercourtof appe al s . W e ar e capabl e of deci di ng i f fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons ar e appr opr i at e i n thi s court . ” Si eve rdi ng , 469 F. 3d at1344.

- 15- w i l l notacc eptanyfurtherappea l s oror i gi nal pr ocee di ngs r el at i ng t o the part i es
an d su bject m att er o f th is case fil ed b yap p ell an t. ”). 8 I n addi t i on t o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons w e modi fyand appr ove,
w e b eli ev e tha t para ll el fil ing restri cti o n s in this co u rtare w arran ted. M r. 9 A ndr ew s has abus ed the appe l l at e pr oces s i n a manners i m i l art o hi s abus e of the d istric t co u rt’s o ffice s – fili n g fiv e f riv o lo u s a p p e a ls in th re e se p a ra te c a se s, a ll i nv olvi ng essent i al l ythe sam e cl ai m s, al on g w i th a raftof eq uall ym eri t l ess
m o tio n s a n d o bje c tio n s . See supra at9- 10. A ccor di ngl y , s ubj ectt o R ul e 35 of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e and Tenth C i r cui tR ul e 35. 1, w e w i l l not
ac ce p t anyfu rth er pro se fi l i ngs fr om M r . A ndr ew s r el at ed t o W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O k lah o m a c a se N o s. C IV -0 5 -1 1 0 , C IV -0 6 -5 1 0 , o r C IV -0 6 -6 5 2 ; th e C ler ko f th is
c o u rt sh a ll retu rn a n ysu c h fili n g s, u n filed , to M r. A n d re w s. A d d iti o n a lly , this
co u rtw il l no t acc ep t anyfu rth er pr o s e appea l s oror i gi nal pr ocee di ngs fi l ed by M r . A ndr ew s r el at ed t o the s ubj ectm att erof thes e ca s es . M r . A ndr ew s s hal l haveT his cou rthas the p ow er t o im po se st i l l further sanct i on s such as cost s, 10 att orneyfee s , and doubl e cos t s forthe fi l i ng of fr i vol ous appea l s , as w el l as an o u tr igh t ban o n ce rt ain a p p ea ls, w h ethe r pro se o r c o u n s e le d
. See Fe d. R. A pp . P. 3 8 ; Va n S ick le , 791 F. 2d at1437. A l though w e have notchos en t o i m pos e s uch s anct i ons her e, w e maydo s o i f M r . A ndr ew s ’ s abus i ve fi l i ngs cont i nue.

- 16- t en d ay s fr om the d at e of thi s ordert o fil e w ri tt en o bject i on s, l i m i t ed to 15 p ages, to th e s e p ro p o s e d s a n c tio n s . See Wernerv. Utah , 3 2 F
. 3 d 1 4 4 6 , 1 4 4 9 (10 th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ); Judd , 1 9 9 8 W L 3 1 4 3 1 5 , * 5 ; In r e Har t f ord Text i le C or

p. , 6 8 1 F .2 d a t 8 9
. I f M r . A n d r e w s d o e s n o tfi l e a n o bj e c t i o n , th e s a n c t i o n s s h a l l t a k e e ffe c t2 0 d a ys from the d at e of thi s order
. If M r. A nd rew s does fil e t i m el yobj ect i on s, these
s anct i ons s hal l nott ake e ffe ctunt i l aft erthi s courthas rul ed on hi s obj ect i ons ; the fi l i ng r es tr i ct i ons s hal l appl yt o anym att erfi l ed af t erthatt i m e. 10 * * * T he j udgm entof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma i s aff

i rm ed, w i th the exc ept i on of thatport i on of the or derpl aci ng fil ing restri cti o n s o n M r. A n d rew s; th o se re str ict ion s are m o d ifi ed to co v er pro se fi l i ng s i n o r r el at ed to the subj ectm att er of W est ern D i stri ctof O klahom a case N os . C I V
- 05- 110, C I V
- 06- 510, orC I V
- 06- 652. M r . A ndr ew s i s furtherenj oi ned f ro m a d d iti o n a l pr o s e fi l i ngs i n thi s courti n connec t i on w i th W es t ern D i s tr i ctof O k laho m a c ase N o s. C IV -05 -11 0 , C IV -06 -51 0 , o r C IV -06 -65 2 , o r an yfu rth er pro
se appea l s r el at ed t o the s ubj ectm att erof thes e thr ee c as es , exce ptas not ed h e re in
. So order ed.