* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may

be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 7/30/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

ISA ABDULLAH RAMADAN

SHABAZZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

R. MICHAEL CODY,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 96-6092

(D.C. No. CV-95-1216)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

This is an appeal from an Order of the district court denying Petitioner leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. In denying petitioner in

forma pauperis status, the district court relied on the findings and recommendation of a

magistrate judge. The magistrate recommended that petitioner’s Motion for Leave to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied on the grounds that petitioner failed to satisfy
- 2 -

certain preconditions to filing this action. See Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902

(10th Cir. 1986) (the federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of

abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored preconditions on a plaintiff’s ability to

bring future actions). The magistrate relied on the Order entered in Shabazz v. Kaiser,

CIV-88-2239-R, Western District of Oklahoma (Opinion and Order, February 16, 1989),

which set forth five preconditions for the filing by petitioner of future actions: (1) he

must carry a stronger burden of proof that he is economically unable to pay filing fees; (2)

he must demonstrate to the court that this action is commenced in good faith and not

malicious or without arguable merit; (3) his pleadings must be certified as required by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; (4) he must include in every petition a list of each previous action filed

including the party or parties sued, the basis for the claim, the final disposition, the court

in which it was filed and the dates of the filing and disposition; and (5) he must send all

pleadings to the respondents and provide the court with proof of service. We have upheld

these specific preconditions as “clearly the type of carefully tailored restrictions

contemplated by the various courts that have addressed the question of restraints on

abusive litigants.” Cotner, 795 F.2d at 902.

When this action was assigned to the magistrate judge for consideration of

petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis the magistrate reviewed the

complaint and materials submitted by Petitioner and determined that he had failed to

satisfy preconditions 2, 3 and 4. Upon request of the district court, the magistrate made
- 3 -

more detailed supplemental findings to support its conclusion that petitioner had not met

the required preconditions. After reviewing these supplemental findings, materials

submitted by petitioner and the express language of the 1989 Order, the district court

concluded that the magistrate judge correctly denied petitioner leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. On review of the record before us, we AFFIRM the district court’s Order

denying petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis for substantially the same reasons

as set forth therein, as well as the reasons set forth in the magistrate’s findings and

recommendation. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge