F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 29 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GARRY LEE SNYDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HANNELORE KITTS, District Judge;
JEFF LEE McVEY; MICHAEL K.
JOHNSON; JOEL JACKSON; JEFF
PARR; LAURN H. CHILES, No. 97-3116
"Chairman," Stafford County, Kansas; (D.C. No. 97-1079-WEB)
DARREL STRODA, CEO Federal (D. Kan.)
Land Bank; BRUCE SHRIEFER;
CARL DUDREY, Dudrey Cattle
Company; MERLIN GRIMES;
ROGER MURPHY; REGINAL
FISHER; LARRY CARR, Carr
Auction Company; JOHN DOES
1 - 99; BROCK McPHERSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Plaintiff Gerry L. Snyder appeals from the district court's dismissal of his
complaint and imposition of future filing restrictions. Our review of the district
court's decision to dismiss is de novo. Pelt v. Utah, 104 F.3d 1534, 1540 (10th
Cir. 1996); Urban ex rel. Urban v. Jefferson County Sch. Dist. R-1, 89 F.3d 720,
724 (10th Cir. 1996). This court will
approve[] [filing] restrictions placed on litigants with a documented
lengthy history of vexatious, abusive actions, so long as the court
publishes guidelines about what the plaintiff must do to obtain court
permission to file an action, and the plaintiff is given notice and an
opportunity to respond to the restrictive order.
Werner v. Utah, 32 F.3d 1446, 1448 (10th Cir. 1994).
Mr. Snyder's complaint concerns a mortgage foreclosure action filed in
Kansas state court, and is his third attempt to contest and invalidate that action in
federal court. The district court dismissed Mr. Snyder's complaint on the grounds
of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim against any
defendant upon which relief might be granted, collateral estoppel, res judicata,
and judicial immunity. Moreover, because the district court found Mr. Snyder
-2-
had "demonstrated a pattern" of "filing factually and legally meritless claims," the
district court also placed future filing restrictions on Mr. Snyder pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11.
After review of the record and the parties' briefs and pleadings, we affirm
the district court's dismissal of Mr. Snyder's action for substantially the reasons
stated by that court in its April 24, 1997 Memorandum and Order, a copy of
which is attached herewith. Further, the district court satisfied the requisite
standard for imposing filing restrictions, and we therefore also affirm the district
court's imposition of future filing restrictions on Mr. Snyder.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-3-