Johnson v. Cowley

Tenth Circuit

Johnson v. Cowley

872 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4629

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1989

DocketNos. 87-8065, 87-8070, 88-8001, 88-8017, 88-8027, 88-8039, 88-8040, 88-8077, 88-8085, 89-505, 89-511, 89-512, 89-513, 89-515 and 89-516

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 872 F.2d 342 (Johnson v. Cowley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Cowley, 872 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4629 (10th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

[344]*344By these cases, commenced in the court’s original jurisdiction, petitioner alleges numerous petty grievances against prison officials. In each case, petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The underlying pleadings are vague, rambling, replete with legalistic jargon, and characteristic of numerous papers filed previously by petitioner in other cases. Since 1980, petitioner has commenced fifty-four cases in the court’s original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed (See Appendix A).

The subject matter of these cases is conspicuously inappropriate for this court’s original jurisdiction. For that reason they are frivolous. Those who invoke the court’s jurisdiction are charged with both the knowledge of the limits of that jurisdiction and the rules of procedure. We conclude that petitioner has long engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive. Appropriate restriction on a litigant’s ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis is within the inherent powers of the court. In re McDonald, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir.1986).

Because petitioner has repeatedly abused the original jurisdiction of this court, we direct the clerk not to accept further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs which allege only grievances against prison officials unless the required docketing fee is paid and all other rules of procedure have been satisfied.

It is further ordered that petitioner will be allowed fifteen days from the date of this order to pay the required filing fee in each of the above cases. If petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee within the time allowed, these cases will be dismissed without further notice.

APPENDIX A

[[Image here]]

[345]*345[[Image here]]

[346]*346[[Image here]]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

[344]*344By these cases, commenced in the court’s original jurisdiction, petitioner alleges numerous petty grievances against prison officials. In each case, petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The underlying pleadings are vague, rambling, replete with legalistic jargon, and characteristic of numerous papers filed previously by petitioner in other cases. Since 1980, petitioner has commenced fifty-four cases in the court’s original jurisdiction, in addition to some thirty-three appeals he has filed (See Appendix A).

The subject matter of these cases is conspicuously inappropriate for this court’s original jurisdiction. For that reason they are frivolous. Those who invoke the court’s jurisdiction are charged with both the knowledge of the limits of that jurisdiction and the rules of procedure. We conclude that petitioner has long engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive. Appropriate restriction on a litigant’s ability to commence abusive litigation in forma pauperis is within the inherent powers of the court. In re McDonald, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 993, 103 L.Ed.2d 158 (1989); Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir.1986).

Because petitioner has repeatedly abused the original jurisdiction of this court, we direct the clerk not to accept further petitions from petitioner for extraordinary writs which allege only grievances against prison officials unless the required docketing fee is paid and all other rules of procedure have been satisfied.

It is further ordered that petitioner will be allowed fifteen days from the date of this order to pay the required filing fee in each of the above cases. If petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee within the time allowed, these cases will be dismissed without further notice.

APPENDIX A

[[Image here]]

[345]*345[[Image here]]

[346]*346[[Image here]]

William F. Schlicher v. Don Thomas, Jerry Green, Robert Hendricks and R.L. Smith, William F. Schlicher v. Julie L. Riddle and Don Thomas, and Any Others Whom Become Exposed or Revealed as Support/aiders/abettors, in Their Individual Selves, Combined and Conspired, William F. Schlicher v. Lori E. Reeves, Julie L. Riddle, John J. Knoll, Lonnie Koch, Officer Gary Comstock, Officer Jack Hires, Roger Parker, Officer Major L.M. Leising, R. Vogsburg, Mike Nelson and William L. Cummings

111 F.3d 777 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)

Schlicher v. Thomas

111 F.3d 777 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)

Day v. Cody

85 F.3d 640 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)

Jerry Young A/K/A Ramadan v. Donald Selsky, P. Orengo, R. Althouse, R.J. Cunningham, D. Schaller, L. Jewett

41 F.3d 47 (Second Circuit, 1994)

Werner v. The State Of Utah

32 F.3d 1446 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)

Werner v. Utah

32 F.3d 1446 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)

In Re Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow, Debtors. Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow v. C. Gail Hunter

17 F.3d 314 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 F.2d 342, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-cowley-ca10-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack