Opinion
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02490-LTB
10-23-2014
YOUNG YIL JO, Plaintiff, v. SIX UNKNOWN NAMES AGENTS, or MR. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BARACK OBAMA, Defendants.
IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
On September 17, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff, Young Yil Jo, to respond and show cause within thirty days why the Clerk of the Court should not be directed to return unfiled to Plaintiff any future pleading received by the Court from Plaintiff that does not comply with the filing restrictions entered in Case No. 14-cv-00700-LTB. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's show cause order within the time allowed.
"[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and there is no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous or malicious." Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted) (per curiam). "Federal courts have the inherent power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances." See Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F,3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar. Ass'n, 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th Cir. 2006); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 351 (10th Cir. 1989), and "where, as here, a party has engaged in a pattern of litigation activity which is manifestly abusive, restrictions are appropriate," In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994).
Filing restrictions are appropriate in this case, as provided for in Tripati, 878 F.2d at 351. Applicant has a lengthy and abusive history, and the Court has provided a guideline to him to obtain permission to file civil actions in this Court, of which he received notice and an opportunity to oppose before it is implemented. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353-54.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that because Plaintiff continues to intentionally ignore the Court's filing restriction and fails to follow the proper procedure for filing an action in this Court, the Clerk of the Court is directed to return unfiled to Plaintiff any future initial pleading received by the Court from Plaintiff that is filed pro se and is not submitted on a Court-approved form or does not comply with the filing restrictions entered in Jo v. Six Unknown Names Agents, et al., No. 14-cv-00700-LTB, ECF No. 15 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2014), No. 14-1264 (Sept. 22, 2014) (dismissed for lack of prosecution).
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of October, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court