United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1845

___________________________

David Anthony Stebbins

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Rita F. Stebbins; David D. Stebbins

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison

____________

 Submitted: September 24, 2014

Filed: September 26, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
David Stebbins appeals following the district court’s pre-service dismissal of 1

his pro se action, in which he alleged that defendants, his parents, improperly listed

him as a dependant on their tax returns.

In dismissing Stebbins’s complaint, the district court concluded that Stebbins

had a history of frivolous litigation and had abused the privilege of proceeding in

forma pauperis; the court thus imposed restrictions on Stebbins’s future filings. 

Specifically, the court limited the number of cases that Stebbins could file in the

Western District of Arkansas to no more than one case every three months, and only

upon payment of a $50 bond, refunded if the complaint was adjudged not frivolous. 

The court added that nothing in its order prohibited Stebbins from proceeding with

counsel, from defending himself in a lawsuit brought against him, or from filing a

claim in which he alleged immediate, extraordinary, and irreparable physical harm. 

Stebbins challenges the dismissal of the action, and the imposition of filing

restrictions.

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the

complaint for failure to state a claim. We also conclude that the court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing the filing restrictions, because it is undisputed that Stebbins

has proceeded in forma pauperis on at least sixteen complaints that proved meritless,

and has filed numerous frivolous motions, since May 2010; and he had the

opportunity to, and did, file objections to the magistrate judge’s report recommending

the restrictions. See Day v. Day, 510 U.S. 1, 2 (1993) (per curiam) (court may impose

filing restrictions where individual has filed numerous frivolous pleadings); In re

The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

-2-
Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (standard of review);

Peck v. Hoff, 660 F.2d 371, 374 (8th Cir. 1981) (in imposing pre-filing review

procedure, appellant’s opportunity to respond to materials and arguments was

sufficient). Further, in these circumstances, we conclude that the restrictions are not

unduly harsh. Cf. Tyler, 839 F.3d at 1292-93 (affirming order that prospectively

limited plaintiff to filing one in forma pauperis complaint per month); Green v.

White, 616 F.2d 1054, 1055 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-3-