Rivers v. State of Colorado

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez

Civil Action No. 22-cv-2922-WJM-STV

BERNARD KENNETH RIVERS, Jr.,

Plaintiff, v.

STATE OF COLORADO, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER IMPOSING FILING RESTRICTIONS ON PLAINTIFF

On June 3, 2025, the Court entered an Order denying several post-judgment motions for relief filed by pro se Plaintiff Bernard Kenneth Rivers, Jr. and considering whether to impose filing restrictions on him. (ECF No. 121.) Specifically, the Court laid out the law applicable to imposing filing restrictions and gave “Rivers an opportunity to explain why he believes that such an Order is not appropriate.” (Id. at 2.) The Court also gave “Defendants an opportunity to respond.” Despite these opportunities, the parties did not file papers explaining why the Court should (or should not) impose filing restrictions on Rivers. Instead, Rivers simply continued to file notices of several documents that appear to pertain to his state court affairs. (ECF Nos. 122–133.) Defendants have not filed a response to any of these filings. Thus, given the very large number of completely irrelevant and frivolous documents Rivers has filed over the course of several months (including after the Court warned him that it was considering entering this Order), the Court finds it appropriate to enjoin Rivers from filing further pro se documents in this case without leave of Court. The Tenth Circuit has approved similar restrictions as a first response to abusive filings. Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). If Rivers desires to file such pro se documents, he shall file a petition with the Clerk of Court requesting leave to file a pleading that includes (1) a copy of this Order; (2) a copy of the proposed filing; and (3) a notarized affidavit, or declaration which fully complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, certifying that the document is not duplicative of a document already filed and/or does not involve issues already resolved by the Court, and is not frivolous, malicious, or made in bad faith. Given his pro se status, Rivers may continue to file such motions for leave directly with the Court via CM/ECF. Failure to follow these procedures will result in a summary rejection of any future filings to which this restriction applies. Finally, the Court ORDERS that, in the future, Defendants need not file any response to any filing submitted by Rivers unless specifically directed to do so by the Court. Dated this 7'" day of August, 2025. BY ugh x J / William J-Wartinez Senior United States District Judge