Kahler v. Wal-Mart Stores

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: May 14, 2024
• Docket: 24-1023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 14, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARY LEE KAHLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-1023 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV-01536-WJM-STV) WAL-MART STORES, INC., a/k/a (D. Colo.) Walmart, Inc.,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Mary Lee Kahler appeals from an order striking several documents she

filed in district court. In striking Kahler’s filings, the district court noted it had

long past dismissed the underlying action and Kahler had already exhausted

her right to appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking

Kahler’s filings. Thus, this court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 and affirms the district court order dated December 19, 2023.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 2

Kahler filed the complaint underlying this action on May 29, 2020,

raising claims under several federal civil rights provisions. Kahler v. Walmart

Inc., No. 22-1136, 2023 WL 18358, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 3, 2023). The district

court concluded all claims set out in Kahler’s complaint were barred by claim

preclusion. Id. This court affirmed the district court’s order of dismissal. Id. at

*4. In so doing, however, this court affirmed one narrow aspect of the district

court order on alternate grounds. Id. at *3-4. Kahler concluded a claim relating

to a letter Walmart’s counsel sent Kahler on January 16, 2020, was not subject

to claim preclusion. Id. Kahler nevertheless affirmed the district court’s

dismissal of that claim because it failed as a matter of law. Id.

After this court issued its mandate in Kahler, Kahler continued to file

documents in this case in the district court. Kahler filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motions, essentially asking the district court to review and

reverse Kahler’s conclusion that Kahler’s retaliation claim arising from the

January 16 email failed as a matter of law. The district court denied Kahler’s

Rule 59 and 60 motions, correctly reasoning it did not have jurisdiction to

review Kahler. This court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Kahler’s appeal

from the denial of her Rule 59 and 60 motions because her notice of appeal

was not timely filed. Kahler filed a series of additional documents, specifically

including a motion for summary judgment. In response to Walmart’s motion to

strike the summary judgment motion, the district court struck all pending

documents filed by Kahler. In so doing, the district court concluded as follows:

2 Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 3

“The Court respects and empathizes with the fact [Kahler] earnestly feels she

has been wronged. But she has received her day in court. It cannot be stated

emphatically enough that this action is over. [Kahler] has exhausted her

procedurally proper appeals, and she has lost.”

This court reviews the district court order striking Kahler’s filings for

abuse of discretion. Fowler Bros. v. Young (In re Young), 91 F.3d 1367, 1377

(10th Cir. 1996); see also Hornsby v. Evans, 328 F. App’x 587, 588 (10th Cir.

2009) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value) (“The

power of district courts to manage their dockets is deeply ingrained in our

jurisprudence, and a district court’s exercise of that power is reviewed only for

abuse of discretion.”). A district court abuses its discretion when it issues an

“arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment.”

Wyoming v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 661 F.3d 1209, 1227 (10th Cir. 2011)

(quotation omitted). In addition, “a decision based on an erroneous view of the

law is an abuse of discretion.” Dennis Garberg & Assocs. v. Pack-Tech Int’l

Corp., 115 F.3d 767, 771 (10th Cir. 1997).

The district court acted well within the bounds of its discretion in

striking Kahler’s filings. This court’s decision in Kahler made clear Kahler’s

claim related to the January 16, 2020, email failed as a matter of law. The

district court emphasized this point, and its powerlessness to overrule or

disregard Kahler in resolving Kahler’s Rule 59 and 60 motions. Given all this,

the district court was quite correct in concluding Kahler received her day in

3 Appellate Case: 24-1023 Document: 010111049202 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 4

court, exhausted her procedurally proper appeals, and lost. Because Kahler has

already received her fair share of scarce judicial resources, Hornsby, 328 F.

App’x at 589, the district court acted reasonably in striking Kahler’s filings

and reminding her this case has come to its end.

This court declines Walmart’s request to declare Kahler’s appeal

frivolous. See Fed. R. App. P. 38. Nevertheless, as did the district court, we

specifically caution Kahler that this case has come to a close. Any further

district court filings or appeals in this matter may very well subject Kahler to

sanctions and/or an award in Walmart’s favor of attorney fees.

The order of the United States District Court for the District of

Colorado is hereby AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge