United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THIRD MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
MATTER comes before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's Third Motion to Reconsider, Doc. 10, filed
March 24, 2017.
acknowledges that Defendants, who are state court clerks,
have absolute immunity from Plaintiff's claims, but has,
nevertheless, filed a Third Motion to Reconsider. The Court
denies Plaintiff's Third Motion to Reconsider for the
reasons stated in the Court's Orders dismissing this
case, denying Plaintiff's First Motion to Reconsider, and
denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to Reconsider.
See Doc. 4, filed January 25, 2017, Doc. 7, filed
March 6, 2017, and Doc. 9, filed March 17, 2017.
Plaintiff has continued to file meritless motions after the
Court has explained that the relief he seeks is not
available, the Court finds that filing restrictions are
appropriate so that the Court does not expend valuable
resources addressing future meritless motions.
Power to Impose Filing Restrictions
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has discussed the
Court's power to impose filing restrictions and the
procedure for imposing filing restrictions:
“[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) (per curiam) (citation
omitted). “There is strong precedent establishing the
inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities
of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored
restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.”
Cotner v. Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900, 902 (10th
Cir.1986). “Even onerous conditions may be imposed upon
a litigant as long as they are designed to assist the ...
court in curbing the particular abusive behavior involved,
” except that they “cannot be so burdensome ...
as to deny a litigant meaningful access to the courts.”
Id. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Litigiousness alone will not support an injunction
restricting filing activities. However, injunctions are
proper where the litigant's abusive and lengthy history
is properly set forth.” Tripati, 878 F.2d at
353 (citations omitted). “[T]here must be some
guidelines as to what [a party] must do to obtain the
court's permission to file an action.” Id.
at 354. “In addition, [the party] is entitled to notice
and an opportunity to oppose the court's order before it
is instituted.” Id. A hearing is not required;
a written opportunity to respond is sufficient. See
Landrith v. Schmidt, 732 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir.
Order dismissing this case, the Court explained that absolute
judicial immunity extends to clerks of court. See Doc. 4 at 3
(citing cases from the United States Court of Appeals for the
then filed his First Motion for Reconsideration asserting
that the clerks committed gross negligence by not following
the state court judge's instructions and the law, and
consequently, the clerks cannot have immunity. See Doc. 6. In
its Order denying Plaintiff's First Motion to Reconsider,
the Court explained that a motion to alter or amend a
judgment should be granted only to correct manifest errors of
law or to present newly discovered evidence, and noted that
Plaintiff had not shown any manifest errors of law and had
not presented any newly discovered evidence. See Doc. 7 at 2.
The Court also noted that Plaintiff's assertion, that the
defendant court clerks cannot have immunity because they were
grossly negligent, is contrary to established case law. See
Doc. 7 at 2-3 (citing cases from the Supreme Court of the
United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the
then filed his Second Motion to Reconsider arguing that
granting the defendant clerks immunity for their mistakes
does not serve the public good. See Doc. 8. Plaintiff's
Second Motion to Reconsider did not show any manifest errors
of law, did not present any newly discovered evidence, and
did not cite any legal authority to support his argument that
the defendant clerks should not have immunity. In its Order
denying Plaintiff's Second Motion to Reconsider, the
Court explained that it “cannot and will not issue a
ruling that is clearly contrary to case law from the Supreme
Court of the United States and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.” Doc. 9 at 3.
the Court clearly stating that it does not have the authority
to grant the relief Plaintiff is requesting, Plaintiff filed
his Third Motion to Reconsider. Yet again, Plaintiff did not
show any manifest errors of law, did not present any newly
discovered evidence, and did not cite any legal authority to
support his argument that the defendant clerks should not