United States District Court, D. Kansas
JAMES C. STRADER, Plaintiff,
ROGER WERHOLTZ, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW, U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On October 4, 2019, the Court dismissed this matter for
failure to state a claim for relief.
the dismissal, plaintiff submitted two motions for subpoena
(Docs. 63 and 64), a motion for PLRA immediate ruling/order
and immediate release (Doc. 65), a motion to the court for
departure (Doc. 66), a motion to the court of evidence (Doc.
67), a motion for defendants to cease all immediate contact
(Doc. 69), a motion to add defendants (Doc. 70), a motion for
discovery (Doc. 71), and a motion for orders (Doc. 80).
Plaintiff also has submitted six proposed supplements to the
second amended complaint, a notice of Department of
Corrections regulations, and two pleadings that have been
construed as letters to the clerk of the court.
Court has examined these materials, which exceed nine hundred
pages, and finds no grounds to disturb the order of
dismissal. The documents submitted to the Court do not
present well-pleaded allegations for relief, nor do they
specifically address the dismissal of this action for failure
to state a claim for relief. Many appear to be internal
Department of Corrections forms and regulations that are not
related to the grounds presented in the complaint. Some
material appears to contain letters to family members, and
other portions are written in chapters, suggesting that
plaintiff submits a journal. See Doc. 82.
plaintiff presents no coherent argument addressed to the
dismissal in this matter, the Court will deny the pending
motions and will take no action on the pleadings construed as
letters, supplements, and notices.
has no constitutional right to file frivolous or malicious
matters. See Depineda v. Hemphill, 34 F.3d 946, 948
(10thCir. 1994)(“Plaintiff has no absolute
unconditional right of access to the courts and no
constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or
malicious actions.”)(citing Winslow v. Hunter,
17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly,
where a plaintiff has a history of repetitive filings and
abuse of the judicial process, a court may exercise its
inherent power to impose orders to manage its docket and
deter frivolous filings.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has
provided the following guidance:
When deciding to impose sanctions on an abusive litigant the
court must balance two competing interests: (1) the
litigant's constitutional right of access to the courts,
see Bounds [v. Smith], 430 U.S. , 821, 97 S.Ct.
1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 [(1977)], and (2) the court's
inherent power to regulate its docket, see Link v. Wabash
R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-31, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734
(1962), see also Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447
U.S. 752, 764, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488 (1980).
Green v. Price, 76 F.3d 392, 1996 WL 56075, *2
(10th Cir. 1996)(unpublished decision).
court elects to impose reasonable filing restrictions on a
party, it must provide guidelines on how the plaintiff may
proceed in a subsequent action and must provide the plaintiff
with an opportunity to respond to the protective order.
Depineda, id. (citing Tripati v.
Beeman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989)).
plaintiff has filed only two actions in this district, the
Court will not impose filing restrictions that go beyond
those matters at this time. However, because plaintiff has
filed repetitive, irrelevant, and lengthy motions and other
pleadings in the present action, the Court will limit his
future filings in this case to (1) an objection to the filing
restrictions outlined herein, (2) a post-judgment motion
under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and (3) a Notice of Appeal, and, if necessary, a
motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Such
pleadings are limited to five (5) pages in length. Any other
pleadings submitted by the plaintiff will be reviewed by the
Court before filing and will not be filed without the express
authorization of the Court.
THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff's pending
motions (Docs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, and 80) are
FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff may not file additional pleadings
in this matter without leave of the Court except those
expressly identified herein, namely, an objection to the
filing limitations outlined, a post-judgment motion, and a
notice of appeal accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall ...