Court Opinion

ID: 5159683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:35:39.946961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:33.006292
License: Public Domain

[1] Rainsford Winslow appeals the trial court's injunction which prevents him from "filing as plaintiff any further actions in the District Court . . . wherein he appears pro se . . . ." We reverse the judgment of the trial court granting the permanent injunction because we hold that sole jurisdiction relative to this issue is vested in the Colorado Supreme Court.
[2] Our Supreme Court's power to issue injunctions against pro se
plaintiffs derives from and "is based upon Article VI, Section 2(1) of the Colorado Constitution which vests [the Supreme Court] with general superintending power over all inferior state courts." Board of CountyCommissioners v. Barday, 197 Colo. 519, 594 P.2d 1057 (1979). The authority to hear matters dealing with injunctions against abuse of the judicial process by a pro se litigant rests exclusively with the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Howard, 640 P.2d 1128
(Colo. 1982); People v. Dunlap, 623 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1981); Board of CountyCommissioners v. Barday, supra. Thus, we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the injunction.
[3] Judgment reversed.
[4] JUDGE SMITH and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.