Opinion ID: 6335075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The show cause order

Text: Mr. Jaiyeola brought an action against Garmin International, Inc., asserting Garmin’s failure to hire him was discriminatory.2 After a year of the parties attempting to proceed through the early litigation stages, the assigned magistrate judge determined that efforts to effectively and fairly manage the case had been unsuccessful due to Mr. Jaiyeola’s litigation conduct. That conduct included making unsubstantiated claims of fraud and bad faith by defense counsel and requesting sanctions for that alleged conduct;3 seeking, without good cause or success, reconsideration and/or district court review of nearly every discretionary decision the magistrate judge had made; and filing two unsuccessful motions to disqualify the 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the record or an appendix are to those in appeal No. 21-3114. 2 Mr. Jaiyeola has represented himself throughout this litigation. We therefore construe his pro se filings liberally, but we may not act as his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). 3 Mr. Jaiyeola believed counsel committed fraud on the court in two ways. First, in Garmin’s answer, counsel described the job he applied for as “Advanced Materials Engineer – Plastics and Metals,” R., Vol. I at 268 (emphasis added) (boldface omitted), rather than, as Mr. Jaiyeola described it, “Advanced Materials Engineer – Metals,” id. at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Jaiyeola claimed this was fraud on the court because it was an attempt to show he was not qualified for the position. See, e.g., id. at 316-17. Second, Mr. Jaiyeola alleged that counsel lied in another filing when she included an email she wrote to him summarizing a telephone call during which Mr. Jaiyeola allegedly made derogatory comments to her, stated he would be filing an ethics complaint against her, and indicated she would be disbarred. See R., Vol. II at 26. 2 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 3 magistrate judge. Concluding that Mr. Jaiyeola was “abusing the judicial process,” the magistrate judge ordered him to show cause why the case should not “be dismissed as a sanction for his abusive litigation tactics” and why he should not be required to reimburse Garmin for “attorney fees and expenses incurred in response to his frivolous filings.” R., Vol. II at 252. The magistrate judge also vacated the scheduling order. B. Filings leading up to the June 9 status conference Mr. Jaiyeola did not directly respond to the show cause order. Instead, he filed a motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and a stay (ECF No. 1084) so he could appeal the show cause order to this court. On April 14, 2021, seeking to “manage expectations” and “set the tone for this case going forward,” R., Vol. II at 927 (internal quotation marks omitted), the district court set an in-person status conference on the show cause order and the § 1292(b) motion in Kansas City (ECF No. 112). Mr. Jaiyeola moved for reconsideration (ECF No. 113), primarily arguing he could not attend the hearing because of the COVID-19 epidemic and the fact that he resides in Michigan. He also requested recusal of the magistrate judge. The district judge set a telephonic hearing on the motion for reconsideration and recusal, and she ordered expedited briefing (ECF No. 115). Mr. Jaiyeola then filed a motion 4 We identify the many different motions discussed in the remainder of our decision by reference to the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) number on the district court’s docket. Although we omit reference to the separate memoranda Mr. Jaiyeola filed in support of his motions, we have reviewed those memoranda. 3 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 4 to appoint a special master to decide the show cause order and his motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 117).5 Just minutes before the telephonic hearing, however, Mr. Jaiyeola filed his third motion to disqualify the magistrate judge (ECF No. 120). The district judge held the telephonic hearing and denied the motion for reconsideration of the order setting the status conference and the incorporated request for recusal of the magistrate judge (ECF Nos. 122 (minute entry), 134 (transcript)). The court stated it would consider filing restrictions if either party continued to file multiple motions on repetitive issues. See R., Vol. III at 20-21. Mr. Jaiyeola immediately filed a notice of appeal from that ruling (ECF No. 123). The same day, the district court referred ECF No. 120 to the magistrate judge (ECF No. 125). Soon thereafter, and because of the appeal, the district court cancelled the status conference (ECF No. 127). While the appeal was pending, Mr. Jaiyeola filed a motion for a scheduling order (ECF No. 130) and a motion for (1) reconsideration of the referral of ECF No. 120 and (2) recusal of the district judge based on the referral (ECF No. 128). A panel of this court dismissed the appeal because the order denying the motion for reconsideration was not final or immediately appealable, see R., Vol. II at 490-91. After that dismissal, the district court reset the status conference for 5 Mr. Jaiyeola “believe[d]” the district judge had a “conflict regarding the issues” because, by summarizing some of the district judge’s rulings, the magistrate judge had made her “a witness” regarding the issues raised in the show cause order. R., Vol. II at 387. 4 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 5 June 9, 2021 (ECF No. 137). The next day, Mr. Jaiyeola sought reconsideration of that setting, vacatur of the referral of his third disqualification motion, and a ruling on his pending requests to disqualify or recuse the district and magistrate judges (ECF No. 138). The district court vacated the referral, denied the third motion to disqualify, denied the request that the district judge recuse, declined to reschedule the status conference, and ordered the parties to attend that hearing (ECF No. 140). Thereafter, Mr. Jaiyeola filed (1) a motion to vacate the show cause order (ECF No. 141); (2) a motion, soon amended, to continue the June 9 hearing until after briefing on his motion for a scheduling order could be completed so that motion could be considered at the hearing (ECF Nos. 146, 149); and (3) a motion for reconsideration of ECF No. 140 (ECF No. 147). The district court did not rule on the motion to vacate the show cause order, but it denied the other two motions (ECF No. 150). The court warned that future filings related to the June 9 hearing would likely result in a $200 sanction. Shortly before that order was entered, Mr. Jaiyeola had filed another motion to continue the hearing (ECF No. 151), which the district court separately denied (ECF No. 153). Next, the day before the June 9 hearing, Mr. Jaiyeola filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this court, seeking disqualification of the district and magistrate judges, vacatur of the show cause order, and appointment of a special master. A panel of this court denied the petition on June 28, 2021. 5 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 6 C. The June 9 status conference Meanwhile, the district court held the status conference on June 9. The magistrate judge attended. At the outset, Mr. Jaiyeola objected that his pending mandamus action divested the district court of jurisdiction. The district court overruled that objection, explaining that “[a]bsent a stay by the Tenth Circuit, the filing of a petition for mandamus does not divest the district court of jurisdiction.” Aplee. Suppl. App. at 58 (citing Moore v. Busby, 92 F. App’x 699, 702 (10th Cir. 2004)). At the conclusion of the conference, the court took matters under advisement. By minute order (ECF No. 157), the court denied Mr. Jaiyeola’s motions for § 1292(b) certification and for appointment of a special master. D. Filings after the in-person hearing While the court considered the pending matters, Mr. Jaiyeola filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s presence at the hearing (ECF No. 158). He alleged that the magistrate judge, who sat in the jury box, created a hostile environment by “glaring at” Mr. Jaiyeola and moving closer to him during the hearing. R., Vol. II at 911. Mr. Jaiyeola also filed a response (ECF No. 160) to Garmin’s motion for an extension of time to file its response to the motion for a scheduling order until after the district court ruled on the show cause order. He asked the court to sanction Garmin and its counsel for filing the request, which he characterized as frivolous and in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, by granting summary judgment in his favor and imposing sanctions against defense counsel. The magistrate judge granted the 6 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 7 extension of time and declined to sanction Garmin (ECF No. 161). Mr. Jaiyeola filed a notice of appeal from the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 162). E. The district court’s “final chance” ruling On June 18, while the appeal was pending, the district court issued a 36-page ruling (ECF No. 165). The court first determined that the magistrate judge’s order granting Garmin’s motion for an extension of time and declining Mr. Jaiyeola’s request for sanctions was an unappealable interlocutory order, and therefore Mr. Jaiyeola’s notice of appeal was frivolous and deficient; accordingly, the notice did not divest the district court of jurisdiction. This court in fact dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on July 6, 2021, because the magistrate judge’s order was not final or otherwise appealable. See Aplee. Suppl. App. at 51-53 (ECF No. 180). The district court also determined that Mr. Jaiyeola had (1) never shown cause in writing why his case should not be dismissed; (2) made repetitive, frivolous, and abusive filings, including motions for recusal and motions for reconsideration; (3) made repeated, unsubstantiated misconduct allegations against the court and defense counsel; (4) resisted or obstructed nearly every effort by the court to manage the case and showed disrespect leading up to and during the June 9 hearing; and (5) had engaged in similar conduct in other cases. Regarding Mr. Jaiyeola’s objection to the magistrate judge’s presence at the hearing, the court specifically found that “at no time did [the magistrate judge] glare at [Mr. Jaiyeola], in a hostile manner or otherwise,” and that the magistrate judge “always remained on the 7 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 8 opposite side of the courtroom from [Mr. Jaiyeola].” R., Vol. II at 940. The court concluded that Mr. Jaiyeola’s “objection simply reflects [his] continued and unfounded attempt to baselessly attack a member of the judiciary.” Id. at 941. Consequently, the district court found that the show cause order was warranted, denied the motion to vacate that order, and denied a motion to sanction defense counsel Mr. Jaiyeola had filed (ECF No. 103) just prior to the show cause order. The court also overruled Mr. Jaiyeola’s objections to an order of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 97) denying his motion to compel discovery of documents Garmin claimed were subject to attorney client privilege (ECF No. 62). But rather than dismiss the case as a sanction, the district court gave Mr. Jaiyeola “a final chance” by allowing the case to continue with several restrictions and conditions. Id. at 949. Chief among those were: (1) either party could “notice up to two additional depositions” but could show that additional depositions were warranted by filing “an appropriate and targeted motion”; (2) Mr. Jaiyeola’s filing of any further motions the district court “denied and deemed frivolous” would “result in at least a $200 monetary sanction but may include additional sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice”; (3) “[r]equests to disqualify either the [district judge] or [the magistrate judge would] be deemed frivolous if based on similar allegations as his previous motions or if sought simply because [Mr. Jaiyeola] disagrees with court orders”; (4) “[u]nwarranted or rote motions for reconsideration or review that fail to set forth valid grounds for reconsideration or review, and which are subsequently denied, [would] be deemed frivolous”; and (5) “any other repetitive, abusive, or vexatious 8 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 9 motion . . . may result in additional sanctions, including . . . dismissal with prejudice.” Id. at 950-51. The court “strongly cautioned” Mr. Jaiyeola “that failure to abide by these sanctions and follow these orders [would] likely result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including dismissal of this case with prejudice and without further notice.” Id. at 951. F. Dismissal of the case Despite these warnings, and on the next business day after the June 18 order, Mr. Jaiyeola filed a motion to disqualify both judges, repeating his allegations that the magistrate judge harassed and threatened him during the June 9 conference and that the district judge had enabled and encouraged the magistrate judge’s presence and actions (ECF No. 167). Mr. Jaiyeola also reiterated his previously rejected misconduct claims against the magistrate judge. Two days later, he filed a motion to depose twelve additional witnesses (ECF No. 169). The district court denied the motion to disqualify and deemed it frivolous given the court’s related findings in its June 18 order. And it considered the motion for twelve additional depositions a reflection of Mr. Jaiyeola’s “clear intent . . . to not abide by the Court’s limitations going forward and to continue his aggressive and vexatious litigation behavior,” id. at 1028, because the motion was not “targeted,” as the June 18 order required, see id. at 950, but was based solely on the fact that Mr. Jaiyeola had designated the individuals as witnesses in his initial disclosures. Accordingly, the court dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction under Rule 11 9 Appellate Case: 21-3114 Document: 010110675839 Date Filed: 04/26/2022 Page: 10 because the motions violated “the letter and spirit of the June 18 order,” id. at 1028. The court denied the motion to depose an additional twelve witnesses as moot. Mr. Jaiyeola appealed the judgment of dismissal, giving rise to appeal No. 21-3114. Soon thereafter he made a series of filings in the district court6 seeking reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order (ECF No. 161) granting Garmin’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to Mr. Jaiyeola’s motion for a scheduling order. The district court denied the motions without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because they concerned more than collateral matters, and the appeal from the final judgment divested it of jurisdiction over non-collateral matters (ECF No. 193). Mr. Jaiyeola appealed that ruling, giving rise to appeal No. 21-3169.