Leo v. United States District Court

475 F. App'x 310

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 23, 2012
• Docket: 12-3100
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Alex HuaQiang Leo appeals the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court determined that Mr. Leo continues to challenge orders in other federal cases concerning his discrimination claims against Garmin International. See Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 431 Fed.Appx. 702 (10th Cir.2011) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Garmin on age and race discrimination claims); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 Fed.Appx. 737 (10th Cir.2012) (affirming dismissal of second suit as barred by res judicata and denial of post-judgment motions); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 Fed.Appx. 740 (10th Cir.2012) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 Fed.Appx. 744 (10th Cir.2012) (affirming denial of post-judgment motions and remanding for district court to determine reasonable attorney’s fees as a sanction).

We agree with the district court’s disposition; Mr. Leo’s amended complaint is an improper and repetitive attack on prior district court rulings, when in fact our holdings are the law of the case, McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d 573, 574 (10th Cir.1997), and the judicial defendants are protected by absolute judicial immunity, Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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