Snyder v. Lisk

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 24-4102
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 7, 2025 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RAYMOND MAX SNYDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-4102 (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00007-DN) LAUARA ANN LISK, (D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellee,

and

JUDGE MARVIN BAGLEY, individually and in his official capacity as Justice of the Sixth Judicial District Court of Sevier County; AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE; NATHAN CURTIS, Sevier County Sheriff; MARK CRANE, Sargeant; SEVIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

Defendants.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

RAYMOND MAX SNYDER,

v. No. 24-4103 (D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00056-DN) LAUARA ANN LISK, (D. Utah)

Defendant - Appellee, Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 2

JUDGE ALEX GOBLE, individually and in his official capacity as a Justice of the Sixth Judicial District Court of Sevier County, Utah; AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE; STEWART HARMAN, American Family Insurance's attorney; SHAWN B. MEADOR; WOODBURN & WEDGE; BRANDT DEATON, Detective, Sevier County; CASEY JEWKES, Sevier County Attorney,

Defendants. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before MORITZ, EID, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Plaintiff Raymond Max Snyder appeals from an award of attorney fees

against him in two related lawsuits he brought in Utah federal district

court. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 2 Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 3

I. Background

After his divorce from Lauara Ann Lisk, Snyder filed state-court

lawsuits against her and others in Nevada, Utah, and North Carolina. None

of those lawsuits was successful. He then filed four federal lawsuits in the

District of Utah against Lisk, the state-court judges who presided over his

lawsuits, and several other entities and individuals who were involved in

the state-court proceedings.

The district court dismissed all four cases, designated Snyder a

vexatious litigant, and imposed filing restrictions. Snyder appealed the

dismissals and filing restrictions, and we affirmed in a single order and

judgment. See Snyder v. Goble, Nos. 24-4009, 24-4010, 24-4011, 24-4013,

2025 WL 484876, at *4 (10th Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).

During the pendency of Snyder’s appeal on the merits, Lisk moved for

an award of attorney fees in two of the federal lawsuits. Based on its

previous finding that Snyder is a vexatious litigant, the district court

granted Lisk’s motion and awarded $21,718.70 in fees and costs against

Snyder. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

“When a party fails to raise an argument below, we typically treat the

argument as forfeited.” United States v. Leffler, 942 F.3d 1192, 1196

(10th Cir. 2019). We will reverse on the basis of a forfeited argument only

3 Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 4

if the district court’s judgment was plainly erroneous. Richison v. Ernest

Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011).

In this case, Snyder failed to present to the district court any legal

argument in opposition to Lisk’s motions for attorney fees. Instead, his

responses to Lisk’s motions merely attempted to relitigate the underlying

issues that had already been decided. And Snyder does not contend on

appeal that in granting Lisk’s motions, the district court committed plain

error. See id. at 1131 (a litigant’s “failure to argue for plain error and its

application on appeal . . . surely marks the end of the road for an argument

for reversal not first presented to the district court”). Accordingly, Snyder

waived the issue, and we affirm the district court’s award.

Even if we were inclined to reach the merits, however, it is clear the

district court acted well within its discretion in awarding Lisk her fees and

costs. See Xlear, Inc. v. Focus Nutrition, LLC, 893 F.3d 1227, 1233 (10th Cir.

2018) (reviewing award of attorney fees for abuse of discretion). A court has

the inherent authority to assess attorney fees when a party acts

vexatiously. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991). And

here, the district court found Snyder to be a vexatious litigant. Although

Snyder now insists the district court erred in its finding, we previously

affirmed the district court’s finding, see Snyder v. Goble, 2025 WL 484876,

4 Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 5

at *3-4, and it is therefore law of the case, see McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal

Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1034 (10th Cir. 2000).

We note that Snyder’s vexatious conduct has continued on appeal. In

the previous appeal just concluded, Snyder filed numerous motions in this

court, including, for example, a “Consolidated Motion to find Defendants

Obstructed Justice in the States of Utah and Nevada,” Snyder v. Goble,

2025 WL 484876, at *4. All those motions were denied. See id. In the instant

appeal, Snyder requested authorization to file electronically, which was

denied. He promptly renewed the request, which the Clerk of Court again

denied for the same reasons. Then, after having already filed his opening

brief, Snyder submitted two new briefs with more than 300 pages of

attachments – none of which appear to have anything to do with the issue

on appeal. Snyder has also attempted to file briefs challenging a separate

district court fee order in a related case. Finally, he has filed a motion to

supplement the record with what appear to be additional briefs seeking the

entry of sanctions and summary judgment against various defendants.

Thus, in addition to the district court’s finding that Snyder is a vexatious

litigant and its imposition of filing restrictions, he has engaged in a pattern

of making meritless and repetitive filings in these appeals. We warn Snyder

that any additional meritless and repetitive appellate filings concerning

these consolidated cases or raising issues similar to those already decided

5 Appellate Case: 24-4102 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 03/07/2025 Page: 6

in these cases, may result in the imposition of filing restrictions in this

court.

III. Conclusion

We affirm the award of fees and costs. The pending motion to

supplement the record is denied.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge