Opinion
Case No. 98-3112-SAC.
August 16, 2001.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 7, 1998, Rolly O. Kinnell commenced this pro se civil litigation against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), claiming he was entitled to a guaranteed, interest free loan and seeking an order requiring the VA to fund or guarantee the loan to him. In this same action, Kinnell also claimed that Commercial Financial Services (CFS) had "illegally compounded" interest on certain credit card debt he allegedly owed. Kinnell sought a court order restraining "all debt collection agencies that embezzle and make fraudulent contracts."
On December 9, 1998, this court entered a memorandum and order granting the defendants' respective motions to dismiss Kinnell's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dk. 35). The court found that the VA's decision to not provide Kinnell with a guaranteed loan was final and could not be reviewed in court. Because Kinnell's claims against CFS did not reach the $75,000 threshold, the court held it lacked diversity jurisdiction.
On December 18, 1998, Kinnell filed a pleading titled "Plaintiff files His Clarification Upon Motion to Amend and Supplement Claim with Memorandum" (Dk. 37). The court treated this filing as a motion to alter or amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and denied the same. (Dk. 43). Kinnell filed a notice of appeal. (Dk. 45). The Tenth Circuit combined this appeal with four other appeals brought by Kinnell and dismissed this appeal along with two others pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Dk. 50).
In August and September of 2000, Kinnell filed two documents similarly entitled, "Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis from Orders Denying Relief; Under Rule 60(b)(4) Jurisdiction Upon Question Invoked," and containing essentially the same jurisdictional arguments. In an order filed November 1, 2000, the court denied those motions as devoid of merit. Kinnell responded to this adverse ruling with yet another filing with the new title of "Motion for Declaratory Judgment of Right to Come Under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 In Violation of Congressional Acts: 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)(3)." (Dk. 57).
The court summarily denies the plaintiff's latest frivolous filing. Nothing alleged or asserted in that filing shows this court to have erred in its prior ruling or to have jurisdiction over this case. The court squarely addressed 28 U.S.C. § 2284 in its order of Kinnell v. Secretary of Veteran Affairs, 1999 WL 318091 at *1 n. 2 (Kan. Feb. 9,1999). (Dk. 43, p. 3, n. 2). The plaintiff's civil rights allegations against this court are utterly baseless and totally unrelated to the claims originally advanced in this case. Having demonstrated a pattern of filing meritless pleadings that are abusive of the court and its staff, the court admonishes the plaintiff that it will give serious consideration to filing restrictions should he persist in this pattern of frivolous filings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the plaintiff is denied all relief requested in his motion (Dk. 57).