Court Opinion

ID: 9918749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 17:00:59.830574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:09.963127
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1369     Document: 010110983962        Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           January 16, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  MEGAN KYTE,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                           No. 23-1369
                                                      (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-02999-LTB)
  STATE OF COLORADO,                                             (D. Colo.)

       Defendant - Appellee.
  –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

  MEGAN KYTE,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,
                                                               No. 23-1371
  v.                                                  (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-02971-LTB)
                                                                 (D. Colo.)
  STATE OF OREGON,

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.**
                  _________________________________
        *
          This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
 law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
 persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
        **
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the Appellant’s request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument (the Appellees have not filed briefs). See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f);
 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument.
Appellate Case: 23-1369      Document: 010110983962          Date Filed: 01/16/2024       Page: 2

        Megan Kyte appeals pro se the district court’s dismissals without prejudice of

 two actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).1 Ms. Kyte also requests

 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

 § 1291, we affirm the district court’s dismissals and deny Ms. Kyte’s request to

 proceed ifp.

        We also warn Ms. Kyte that we may restrict her from appealing ifp the dismissal

 of cases if she continues to disregard the filing restrictions the district court has placed

 upon her.

                                     I. BACKGROUND

        In 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado enjoined

 Ms. Kyte from filing pro se civil actions in that court without (1) representation of an

 attorney licensed to practice in Colorado or (2) leave of the court to proceed pro se.

 Kyte v. Mayes, No. 22-cv-02392, slip op. at 5-9 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2022).2 Despite

 these restrictions, Ms. Kyte filed two pro se actions without obtaining leave of the

 court. In the first, she alleged that the State of Colorado discriminated against her by

 failing to issue her a state identification card. In the second, she made the same

 allegation against the State of Oregon.

        1
          Because Ms. Kyte appears pro se, “we liberally construe [her] filings, but we will
 not act as [her] advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
        2
         We may take judicial notice of publicly filed court records. United States v.
 Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007).

                                                2
Appellate Case: 23-1369     Document: 010110983962          Date Filed: 01/16/2024    Page: 3

        The district court dismissed both actions because Ms. Kyte was not

 represented by counsel and did not obtain permission to proceed pro se. It also

 denied Ms. Kyte ifp status on appeal, certifying that any appeals would not be in

 good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

        Ms. Kyte appeals the district court’s dismissals.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

                               A. District Court Dismissals

        We review a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order

 for abuse of discretion. Cosby v. Meadors, 351 F.3d 1324, 1326 (10th Cir. 2003).

 A district court abuses its discretion when it “makes a clear error of judgment or

 exceeds the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Ecclesiastes

 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F.3d 1135, 1143 (10th Cir. 2007)

 (quotations and alterations omitted).

    Legal Background

        a. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)

        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that “[i]f [a] plaintiff fails to

 . . . comply with . . . a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action.”

 “Rule [41(b)] has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte

 for a plaintiff’s failure to . . . comply with the . . . court’s orders.” Olsen v. Mapes,

 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003).

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-1369    Document: 010110983962         Date Filed: 01/16/2024    Page: 4

       b. Filing restrictions

       “Federal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive

 litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under appropriate circumstances.”

 Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175, 1180 (10th Cir. 2010). Filing restrictions “are

 appropriate where (1) the litigant’s lengthy and abusive history is set forth; (2) the

 court provides guidelines as to what the litigant must do to obtain permission to file

 an action; and (3) the litigant received notice and an opportunity to oppose the

 court’s order [imposing filing restrictions] before it [was] instituted.” Id. (quotations

 omitted).

    Application

       On appeal, Ms. Kyte does not challenge the filing restrictions or the district

 court’s finding that she did not comply with them, and she does not identify any

 efforts she made to comply. She instead reasserts her arguments against Colorado

 and Oregon and says that she “do[es] not want an attorney.” Aplt. Br. at 2-4.

 Ms. Kyte has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal orders by failing

 to address the basis for its rulings on appeal. See Toevs v. Reid, 685 F.3d 903, 911

 (10th Cir. 2012). She otherwise has failed to show that the district court’s dismissals

 for failure to comply with filing restrictions was an abuse of discretion.

                                       B. Warning

       Although “litigiousness alone is not a sufficient reason to restrict access to the

 court,” Ms. Kyte’s “abusive and repetitive filings have strained the resources of this

 court.” In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994). In the past two years, she

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-1369      Document: 010110983962          Date Filed: 01/16/2024       Page: 5

 has filed ten appeals, including the two we decide today. In all eight of her resolved

 appeals, we have affirmed the district court’s dismissal or entered dismissal orders

 without reaching the merits of her appeal.3 Three of the resolved appeals challenged

 the district court’s dismissals for failure to comply with its filing restrictions.4 In

 each of those cases, Ms. Kyte demonstrated no attempt to comply with the

 restrictions and did not address the basis for the dismissals on appeal. The same is

 true here.

        We therefore warn Ms. Kyte that we may restrict her from appealing ifp the

 dismissal of cases if she continues to disregard the filing restrictions the district court has

 placed upon her.

                                     III. CONCLUSION

        We affirm the district court’s dismissals. Because Ms. Kyte has not presented

 any “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument” in support of her appeal, we also deny her

        3
          In re: Megan Kyte, No. 22-1121, slip op. (10th Cir. May 18, 2022); Kyte v. Kyte,
 No. 22-1213, 2022 WL 3910507 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2022); Kyte v. IRS, No. 22-1318,
 slip op. (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2022); Kyte v. King, No. 22-1317, slip op. (10th Cir. Dec. 20,
 2022); Kyte v. Mayes, No. 22-1397, slip op. (10th Cir. Jan. 23, 2023); Kyte v. Denver
 Health, No. 23-1199, 2023 WL 4742407 (10th Cir. July 25, 2023); Kyte v. Oregon, No.
 23-1221, 2023 WL 5606234 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023); Kyte v. Colorado DMV, No.
 23-1045, 2023 WL 5995491 (10th Cir. Sept. 15, 2023).
        4
         Kyte v. Denver Health, 2023 WL 4742407; Kyte v. Oregon, 2023 WL 5606234;
 Kyte v. Colorado DMV, 2023 WL 5995491.

                                                5
Appellate Case: 23-1369   Document: 010110983962        Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 6

 request to proceed ifp. Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th

 Cir. 2005).

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           6