From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crownhart v. Graham

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Jun 17, 2020
No. 20-1156 (10th Cir. Jun. 17, 2020)

Summary

affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order

Summary of this case from Crownhart v. T-Mobile Wireless Customer Serv.

Opinion

No. 20-1156

06-17-2020

EARL CROWNHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellee.


(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00903-LTB)
(D. Colo.) ORDER AND JUDGMENT Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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 Appellant's brief and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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.

Pro se litigant, Earl Crownhart, appeals the district court's dismissal of the civil action he filed against Defendant Joe Graham in the District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice, noting it has permanently enjoined Crownhart from filing pro se civil actions in Colorado District Court without first obtaining permission from the court. See Crownhart v. Suthers, et al., No. 13-cv-00959 (D. Colo. June 14, 2013); see also In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding federal courts have the inherent power pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to impose filing restrictions on abusive litigants). Because Crownhart did not comply with the terms of the sanction order, the court dismissed his complaint.

A district court's application of a previously-imposed filing restriction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Peterson, 338 F. App'x 763, 764 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value). After reviewing the record, the appellate brief, and the applicable law, we affirm the dismissal of Crownhart's complaint because he has failed to show compliance with the filing restrictions. Because Crownhart's appeal is wholly frivolous, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind Crownhart he is responsible for the immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge


Summaries of

Crownhart v. Graham

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Jun 17, 2020
No. 20-1156 (10th Cir. Jun. 17, 2020)

affirming dismissal for failure to comply with court order

Summary of this case from Crownhart v. T-Mobile Wireless Customer Serv.
Case details for

Crownhart v. Graham

Case Details

Full title:EARL CROWNHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOE GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellee.

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 17, 2020

Citations

No. 20-1156 (10th Cir. Jun. 17, 2020)

Citing Cases

Crownhart v. T-Mobile Wireless Customer Serv.

" (citation omitted)). See Order of Dismissal, Crownhart v. Buck, No. 20-CV-03304-GPG (D. Colo. Nov. 6,…

Crownhart v. Shield Found.

In 2020, we denied four. See Crownhart v. McIntyre Rentals, 809 Fed.Appx. 551, 551-52 (10th Cir. 2020)…