Case Name: Van STAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman L. ARENDS; Larry Porter; Tom Billings; Clinton Hoeffner, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-24
Citations: 19 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 01-1044
Parties: Van STAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman L. ARENDS; Larry Porter; Tom Billings; Clinton Hoeffner, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 19
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
Van STAFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Norman L. ARENDS; Larry Porter; Tom Billings; Clinton Hoeffner, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-1044.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2001.
Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
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(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.
Mr. Van Stafford, who appears pro se in this action, is a frequent litigant in the federal courts. In this case, he appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint against various Colorado state officials. Although we hold pro se complaints to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers," Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), Mr. Stafford's complaint is completely unintelligible. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court's order (Doc. 4), we AFFIRM.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
. Although Mr. Stafford has been sanctioned on numerous occasions for frivolous litigation, see Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1178 (10th Cir.2000) (collecting cases), no prior sanctions or filing restrictions are applicable to this action.