Court Opinion

ID: 9960858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-17 15:01:14.645959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:55.768105
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3174     Document: 010111033460       Date Filed: 04/17/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          April 17, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-3174
                                                 (D.C. No. 2:20-CV-02068-EFM-ADM)
  GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,                                  (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       We previously upheld the district court’s order prohibiting Mr. Jaiyeola from

 filing any further pleadings in District of Kansas Case No. 20-CV-2068 without court

 authorization. Jaiyeola v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 22-3245, 2023 WL 4417480, at *2

 (10th Cir. July 10, 2023). After the filing restrictions became effective, Mr. Jaiyeola

 sought permission from the district court to file two Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions. The

 district court denied him permission and ordered that the pleadings not be filed but

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-3174     Document: 010111033460         Date Filed: 04/17/2024     Page: 2

 that they instead be returned to Mr. Jaiyeola. He now appeals from that order.1

 Mr. Jaiyeola asks us to (1) construe his appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus;

 (2) order the district court to file his motions; and (3) order that a new district court

 judge be assigned to this case on remand. We will treat his appeal as a petition for a

 writ of mandamus, but we otherwise deny the requested relief.

                                     BACKGROUND

        We previously summarized the procedural history of this case as follows:

        Mr. Jaiyeola sued Garmin in February 2020, alleging it discriminated
        against him in violation of several federal statutes when it failed to hire
        him. The district court, however, ultimately dismissed Mr. Jaiyeola’s suit
        as a sanction for his abusive litigation conduct. This court affirmed the
        dismissal. See Jaiyeola v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., Nos. 21-3114, 21-3169, 2022
        WL 1218642, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022). Mr. Jaiyeola filed a petition
        for panel and en banc rehearing, which this court denied. After the
        dismissal and this court’s affirmance of the same, Mr. Jaiyeola filed a
        motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) in which he argued the
        judgment against him was void.
        The district court denied that motion. Mr. Jaiyeola filed a motion to
        reconsider that denial, which the district court also denied. Mr. Jaiyeola
        then filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for
        reconsideration. The district court denied that motion and also imposed
        filing restrictions on Mr. Jaiyeola.
 Jaiyeola, 2023 WL 4417480, at *1 (record citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

        The filing restrictions that we upheld require Mr. Jaiyeola to “mail or

 otherwise deliver his submissions to the Clerk of the Court, who shall forward them

 to a judge of this Court for determination whether the motion or other filings is

 lacking in merit, duplicative, frivolous, or malicious.” R., vol. IV at 173. The order

        1
          Mr. Jaiyeola proceeds pro se, so “we liberally construe his filings, but will
 not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-3174    Document: 010111033460        Date Filed: 04/17/2024      Page: 3

 further provides that “[t]he Court will either allow the filing or issue an Order

 denying it.” Id.

       In September 2023, Mr. Jaiyeola mailed two motions to the district court.

 These motions sought leave to file (1) a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion challenging

 the district court’s order in this case dated September 29, 2022, denying

 Mr. Jaiyeola’s motion to reconsider; and (2) a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion

 challenging the district court’s memorandum and order of June 24, 2021, dismissing

 this action with prejudice. The district court rejected these filings and returned them

 to Mr. Jaiyeola. It concluded that “[a]s the dismissal of this case had twice been

 affirmed by the Tenth Circuit, and several times had a motion seeking some form of

 reconsideration of such orders [been] denied, yet two other attempted bites at the

 apple were frivolous and vexatious, and merited the invocation of the filing

 restrictions previously filed and affirmed.” R., vol. V at 33.

                                     DISCUSSION

       Mr. Jaiyeola asks us to construe his notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of

 mandamus. We have construed challenges to the district court’s enforcement of

 filing restriction orders as seeking mandamus relief. See Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d

 1446, 1447 (10th Cir. 1994). But Mr. Jaiyeola has failed to show his entitlement to a

 writ of mandamus.

       Mandamus relief is appropriate where a petitioner has established a “clear

 abuse of discretion or conduct amounting to usurpation of judicial power,” which can

 include circumstances “when a petitioner is effectively excluded from federal court.”

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-3174    Document: 010111033460         Date Filed: 04/17/2024    Page: 4

 Id. But no such abuse of discretion or usurpation of power has occurred in this case.

 Notably, “the right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional.”

 Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989). “There is strong precedent

 establishing the inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of abusive

 litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions under the appropriate

 circumstances.” Landrith v. Schmidt, 732 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal

 quotation marks omitted).

       We previously upheld the district court’s order restricting Mr. Jaiyeola’s

 filings. Jaiyeola, 2023 WL 4417480, at *2. This order was imposed due to his

 abusive litigation practices in district court. He fails to show that under the terms of

 the order “the district court so clearly abused its discretion or usurped its power in

 refusing to file [his motions] that mandamus relief would be appropriate,” Werner, 32

 F.3d at 1448.

       In reaching this conclusion, we have examined the proposed filings and

 Mr. Jaiyeola’s appellate arguments concerning them. As for Mr. Jaiyeola’s proposed

 Rule 60(b)(4) filing, we note the district court previously entertained numerous

 post-judgment motions in this proceeding, including his prior Rule 60(b)(4) motion

 asserting that its judgment was void. Mr. Jaiyeola now asserts he has discovered an

 error in the order denying reconsideration from Rule 60(b)(4) relief that makes that

 order “void” under Rule 60(b)(4) as well. Aplt. Br. at 22. We discern no abuse of

 discretion in the district court’s rejection of this proposed filing. Mr. Jaiyeola has

 had ample opportunity to litigate this matter and to present his arguments, including

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-3174     Document: 010111033460        Date Filed: 04/17/2024     Page: 5

 arguments about the Rule 60(b)(4) order. Notably, we previously affirmed the

 district court’s order denying Mr. Jaiyeola’s second motion for reconsideration from

 the order denying Rule 60(b)(4) relief. See Jaiyeola, 2023 WL 4417480, at *2. This

 new filing merely launches a further, successive attack on that post-judgment motion

 and seeks to needlessly prolong this dispute.

       As for Mr. Jaiyeola’s proposed Rule 60(d)(3) filing, it seeks to challenge the

 order entered in June 2021 dismissing this action with prejudice as a sanction. As

 grounds for his attack, Mr. Jaiyeola argues that Garmin’s in-house attorney directed a

 manager at Garmin to change Mr. Jaiyeola’s job interview record, thus committing a

 “fraud on the Court.” Aplt. Br. at 24.2 But the district court did not dismiss this

 action based on Mr. Jaiyeola’s job interview record. It dismissed the action because

 Mr. Jaiyeola violated its order against filing further frivolous motions, including

 successive motions seeking to disqualify the district court judge and a magistrate

 judge. See R., vol. III at 277-87. The district court did not abuse its discretion or

 usurp its power by declining to file the proposed Rule 60(d)(3) motion.

       To the extent Mr. Jaiyeola attempts to collaterally challenge the district court’s

 underlying filing restrictions order of November 9, 2022, as overbroad, burdensome,

 and unconstitutional, see Aplt. Br. at 18-19, he could have raised such a challenge in

       2
          The proposed motion also mentions other statements Garmin’s counsel made
 to the court that Mr. Jaiyeola characterizes as “lies.” R., vol. V at 84-85. But
 Mr. Jaiyeola focuses his appellate argument on the job interview record, and in any
 event these other alleged “lies” are not directly relevant to the district court’s reasons
 for dismissing this case.
                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-3174     Document: 010111033460         Date Filed: 04/17/2024      Page: 6

 his previous appeal, and we will not consider it in this enforcement proceeding. See

 Werner, 32 F.3d at 1448 (if a petitioner disagrees with the district court’s filing

 restrictions, he should file an appeal from the order establishing the restrictions, not

 seek to raise objections in a later mandamus petition challenging their enforcement).

        Finally, we note that Mr. Jaiyeola’s successive, meritless post-judgment filings

 concerning this litigation, and his appeals from their denial, are an abuse of the

 federal judicial system. Because his repetitive filings must come to an end, we warn

 him that any additional meritless and repetitive appellate filings concerning this case

 may result in the imposition of filing restrictions in this court.

                                     CONCLUSION

        We deny Mr. Jaiyeola’s request for mandamus relief. We deny as moot his

 request to assign a different district court judge to preside over this case on remand.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Carolyn B. McHugh
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              6