King v. Marquez

Opinion

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 29, 2025

lerk of IKE L. KING, Clerk of Court

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 25-1259

Vv. (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-00678-LTB-RTG) (D. Colo.)

MONICA MARQUEZ; BRIAN BOATRIGHT; WILLIAM W. HOOD, IU; RICHARD L. GABRIEL; MELISSA HART; CARLOS A. SAMOUR; MARIA E. BERKENKOTTER; CHERYL STEVENS; NORMA ANGELICA SIERRA; DAHLIA D. OLSHER TANNEN; KELLY O. CLARK,

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before FEDERICO, BALDOCK, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.”

Plaintiff Ike King, appearing pro se, commenced a civil action in Weld County

Colorado State District Court against Empire Truck Center and Jason Wilkins alleging a

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 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.

Christopher M. Wolpert

2

violation of the Colorado Motor Vehicle Repair Act. As well explained in the state district court’s order attached hereto as an appendix, Plaintiffs legal filings got out of hand so the state court, consistent with Colorado Supreme Court precedent, enjoined Plaintiff from appearing pro se and required him to retain an attorney if he wished to proceed. See Francis v. Wegener, 494 P.3d 598 (Colo. 2021); Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Winslow, 706 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1985). Instead of directly appealing the state district court’s decision as he could have, see Sanger v. Dennis, 148 P.3d 404, 409 (Colo. App. 2006) (grant of injunctive relief is considered a final, appealable order), Plaintiff, again appearing pro se, filed this action in federal district court against Colorado Supreme Court Justices Monic Marquez, Brian Boatright, William Hood, III, Richard Gabriel, Melissa Hart, Carlos Samour, Jr., and Maria Berkenkotter; Colorado Supreme Court Clerk Cherly Stevens; State District Judge Norma Sierra; and Colorado Attorneys Dahlia and Kelly O. Clark.

In response to two federal district court orders requiring Plaintiffto cure deficiencies in his original complaint, Plaintiff submitted a twenty-five page, single-spaced amended complaint which is the operative pleading in this action. Plaintiff claims a “criminal cover up of organized crime of which each and every Defendant herein is engaged in as active participants.” Among a slew of other federal laws, Plaintiff says Defendants have violated the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962. As best we can discern from the pleading’s rambling nature, what Plaintiff really complains about is the state district court’s order enjoining him from proceeding pro se, which he says constitutes extortion and interferes with his freedom

of contract. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages and asked the federal district court to vacate the “injunction of September 21, 2023” and prevent any “further

99

injunctions against pro se litigants forcing them to hire lawyers.” Accepting a federal magistrate judge’s (Gurley, J.) recommendation, the district court (Babcock, J.) dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (requiring a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim’), or alternatively, as barred by both the Rooker-Fe/dman doctrine and immunity doctrines. Now before us is Plaintiff's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 from the federal district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint. His motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is pending. In his appellate brief, Plaintiff tells us, among many other things, that “[t]his case is about organized crime.” Plaintiff now says “Lewis T. Babcock, Senior Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and Richard T. Gurley, Magistrate Judge for the same United States District Court” have joined “Colorado Public Officials” in a racketeering enterprise to deprive him of his Constitutional rights. Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a federal action brought by a state-court loser complaining of injuries allegedly caused by a state court’s final decision rendered before commencement of the federal proceeding, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005), this appeal is plainly frivolous, and as such, we are empowered to summarily dismiss it. Subsection (e)(2)(B)(1)

of the /FP statute provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court

determines . . . the action is frivolous.”

Accordingly, we DENY Plaintiff's motion to proceed /FP and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint. We modify the district court’s judgment

however and direct that Plaintiff's action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge

APPENDIX

Weld County listrict Court | 901 9°? Avenue Greeley, CO 8063] HA |

1

|

| IKE KING, Planitfy | | COURT USE ONLY |

«VAD vee ct peye pepe peeyn pa a: cime / Case Number | EMPIRE TRUCK CENTER and JASON WILKINS, | 2022 CV 82

| | Defesdanits

j | ! ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO ENJOIN PLAINTIFF FROM APPEARING PRO SE

Inecreasmely. the legal system meludes participation by individuals who are sellrepresenled , Direct participation by lingants who are not represented bv counsel is conslHubonally guaraniced. Colo, Const. art. 2 $ 6 dlowever. this mght is nol without lait. {here are limits on the resources available to the judicial branch, and the Court must balanee the nights of self-represented Iiiigants against the need to provide services to all other cases

Here. Plaintilf Ike King represents himself in an action against Defendants for damages alleged to have resulted from the repair of his vehicle ‘The claim was fled on December 1. 2022 A bench trial is scheduled to proceed on February 22-23, 2024.!

Defendants’ Motion Enjoining Plauntiff from Appearing Pro Se. fied on June &. 2023.

vas denied on June 13. 2023. Defendants naw renew this Molon

APPLICABLE LAW

Acourt has the power to enjoin a person fram procecding pre se in.amy litigation when it

ismecessan to slop abuse of the pudicial process. Jancis u TPegener, 494 P 3d 398 (2021)

“An individual's right of access lo state courts must! be balanced against, and, in a proper ease. Yield to, the interests of other hugants and of the public in general im protecting judicial resources from the deleterious impael of repetitious, baseless pre se itigauion.” fa at 599. “When a pro se iugant’s efforts to obtain reher not only hamper his own cause. but deprive other persons of precious judicial resources. the Supreme Court 1s compelled to deny his right of self

representation as a plamutt” fa, at G09

in an caidier oder. the Court imistakenls referred to dius setung as a gury tial, it rs set as a trial to tae coun

I

The Colorade Supreme Court has upheld the right of trial courts to unpose and enforee HA Haas promibiling pre se higants froin appearing prose. Bal of Cane Commi vs. v Hinsto

$06 P2d 702. 794 (Calo. 88s) ENXcuding pro se filings for a Witgani does not infringe epee Bis

consfdutional might of access te the courts ian Oppoarnmied is permuted for filme throug t empl ment ofan dtlarney authorized te practice im the State of Colorado MNrastan: 706 Pd ai PO4-08

Voor Dipesperp liga Mare euaetes vaya oe ibeageqie par “the Calorade Mere. PRIMED gRe Nitin commenced a@ civil cine HOLE a sredauon af the Colorede

Miotoy Volivie Repair Act Sines dung. Nh Rung Das avionipicd to expand Whe vase foamvohe

i

Mune vrata (aeeries. Phe Courtighes -

Une ee Of ts own fies. aid the actions etted

below are noted

- Mr Rane his fled pleadings not iutherived bs the Colorado Rutos of Civil Procedure. “Resporee to Order’ “Resporse to Kephs Ma. King misunderstands the elles of an

Apdo. MIstises legal ferms and ‘Aeories uiniated to the clan mtolved inthe cuse che

(lobhs Act. rererenees te his caus heing “elear and comineme. COCCA, relerenees ia

common Liv. feta

Theft murders detoss state lites, estappel extorlion. apd privires face cuidenve) Phe Court wall mot prectdge Mr King = underiving clam. but these theares are not relevanl to this preceeding

- Mr. King has fied sucvessive pleadings whieh are redundant aud rest on the same feetal

i

underpangnes as bis prior unisuecessl monens (december 14, 2022 Alfidavit of lke 1.

King in Supportor Reps to Order Supuleting Plan Regarding Setthlememt. January 2, 2023 Agidavn orlked. King in Support or Objection to Supulated Plan Regarding Setlienent,

“2023 Atidavitai che d. King in Support of Lega Notice Regarding

Supulaled Plan Regarding Settlemen : e . 1 : : 4 > Ron rece ing untevorible ruses on pre-tualrautions. Mfr Kane moved to recuse the judee

lo wWhoiut tie case was assigned. Distie: Court Shannon Liaans. on vie basix ol bias Mr ink

then muted an umlependent case agaist Judge Lsons, 2023 CV 27° seeking thal fadpe

CG

POS Sedne per romianee of pubue dates pending an ins CSUR EO : It =

Siig has ditioiy accenuing Gating of Courtorders fe requested a criminal

MVesigelon ad demanded prosecution of derendanis When this request tas not granted,

Mir, King demanded that the en he court reuuire the appearance of the elected district attorney to explam why a proseention was not heme

suTsued Then. Mr. King named District Attores aa

Pp Michael Kourke as a defendant i 2023 CV 27°. seeking that Mr Rourke he preelnded fron

“Judge Lyons was represented by the litomey Generals Gttles in 23 CV 2724 Adenon to Dismiss on sounds af SOVETEISE IDUINTY Was a erated, “Phe clauns aganist Alp Rourke were also dismissed

he

3

performing any exeeuuve Junclion unt! an investigation was completed In addition to a cnminal ivestigavon by the District Allormey, he requested an investigation by the Federal

Bureau of Investigation.

Other pleadings have not favored his positions, and Mr. King has concluded without any evidenuary basis that judicial officers have engaged ina criminal conspiracy with Defendants “to obstruct justice and conceal racketeering acuvity in violation of many stale and federal felony laws...” Mr King repeatedly refers to bemg a victim of racketeering, specifically the (Racketeer Infuenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO")

In Mr King’s Response to Defendant’s Renewed Motion te Enjoin Plaintiff from Appearing Pro Se. Mr King directly addresses and repeatedly refers disdainfully to Defendant's counsel by her first name. Not only does this approach violate mules of civility, but 1 reaches the point of consututing an abuse of the judicial system. Mr. King’s comments are personal. The manner and tone m which Mr. King expresses his position is regarded as harassing to defense counsel* and io the Court. Given the many filings in this case, Mr. King cannot claim he is unaware of the expectation that all individuals be referred to formally. Mr. King has filed complaints with the OMice of Atlomey Regulalion Counsel against defense counsel, Mr. Kong further indicates an intent to file e complaint “in concert Hability claims’ against ihe atlomeys’ (sic) and the McDonough Law Group for aiding and abetling their clients in all

(all) the cniminal offenses,

The two most recent cases (2023 CV 27 and 2023 CV 34°) commenced with a Motion to Proceed in Porma Pauperis, which was granted in both instances. In Lhe instant case, PDetendants represent to the Court that tens of thousands of dollars have been spent in

responding to Mr. King’s pleadings.

PLAINTIFF'S HISTORY OF OTHER FLLINGS

- Defendants bring to the Cowt’s attention informauion about Mr. King having a liligious

history and there being actions in which he took displeasure with the presiding judicial officer.

In the eather Motion to injoin Plainul? from Appearing Pro Se. Defendants represented that Mr. King has been the Plainuiff in thirteen lawsuits in Weld County, ineluding several agains! qudicial officers. In 201], Mr. King alleged “malicious abuse” by Judge Dana Nichols (2011 § 347). Cases initiated bv Mr. King are also noted to have involved other judicial officers, including Judge Gilber! Gutierrez. Judge Charles Unfug. and Judge Carol Faller

“Mr. King’s Response includes statements such as “It's clear you are not that smari Dahlia,” and “Dahlia ‘Pannen is not smart cnough to play any games wath this Plainuff.” > Case 2023 CV 34 was consolidated into case 2022 CV 82 by order entered by Judge Todd ‘Vavior an August &, 2023 Mr. King refers to Judge Taylor as a “co-conspirator.”

The Court rules on the pending motion solely on the basis of how Mr. King has proceeded in cases 7OZ2CV82, 230 V27 and 23CV34. without taking mmo consideranan the

lustany cited in the carer Mouon to Enon

ORDER

This file comains Mr. King’s lengthy. duplicative. and disorganized pleadings. These often delve into irrelevant legal concepts. Resolving such pleadmgs iyustifiably commits judicial resources. As Mr, King qualifies to fle legal actions without payment of a filing fee,‘ there ts no financial commitment on his part to initiating new claims, Defendants. on the other hand, must expend significant amounts in legal fees to respond to Plaimul’s repetiive lings

Mr. King cites his self-represented status as both a sword and a shield (e.g. lus pleadings should be liberally construed, he should not have to engage in ADR). Mr. King 1s indeed granted certain leeway as to the contents and structure of his lengthy pleadings, but this does noi create leave for him lo file pleadings containing statements which are offensive to any participants in this hligation. Me remains bound to the same rules of civil procedure as altomeys heensed to practice law in the slate.

This Court has grave concerns that, as the case progresses to inal, Mi. King will contumie and may increase the frequency and intensity of tus pleadings. While he chooses to regard ceria cout notices as threats, he meludes statements such as “Plaintiff does not care how long this goes on, if is net gong away,”

As this Court finds that Mr. King has senously abused the qudieial process, he 1s enjoined trom appearing pro se as described below:

1. This order apples to the fling of any motions in case 2022 CV &2 and to any initial

claim in which ike King seeks affirmative relief, with the exception of a Title 13 protection order :

2. No filings shall be permitted inlo cases which are either closed or have been

a.

consolidated into other cases.

Prior to any pro se pleading being docketed or uploaded to the electromc fie, it shall be reviewed by the Clerk of the Court, Pleadings must bears certification by an attorney licensed in Colorado attesting that the pleading has been reviewed,

a 3.

Reviewing counsel is charged with ensuring that:

a) The pleading does not include language amounting to a personal atlack agaist counsel or judicial officers,

b} 1s grounded in fact and law, and

* Motion for Filiug Without Payment of Fees granted in case 2023CV27 on May 11, 2023 and im 2023CV34 on June 1, 2023, ce} the claim has not, to the best of counsel's knowledge. been previously raised and

disposed by any slule court 4. Any pleading not bearing certification by a hcensed attorney shall be retumed undockeled to Mr. King by US. mai to his last known address.

This order does not enter Hghtly, but is necessary to protect judicial resources trom the detrimental impact of repetitious Nligation and to prevent the judicial process from being used

tor the purpose of harassment.

Dated. September 21, 2023 SO ORDERED. nN

Norma A. Sierra, Senior Judge