F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 22 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
WILLIAM D. PETERSON, II,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL D. ZIMMERMAN,
Supreme Court Judge; RICHARD G.
HOWE, Supreme Court Judge;
No. 97-4145
GEOFFREY J. BUTLER, Clerk;
(D.C. No. 96-CV-138)
JUDITH M. BILLINGS, Utah Court of
(District of Utah)
Appeals Judge; RUSSELL W.
BENCH, Utah Court of Appeals
Judge; MICHAEL J. WILKINS, Utah
Court of Appeals Judge; MARILYN
M. BRANCH, Clerk; MICHAEL O.
LEAVITT, Governor,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, MCKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Mr. Peterson is an abusive filer who has been before this court, the United
States District Court for the District of Utah, and the state courts of Utah on
numerous occasions. 1 Currently, he is before us appealing the order of the United
States District Court for the District of Utah dismissing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against various members of the Utah Supreme Court, various members of the Utah
Court of Appeals, a court clerk for the Utah Supreme Court, a court clerk for the
Utah Court of Appeals, and the governor of Utah.
On August 8, 1997, United States District Judge J. Thomas Greene
dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint below for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. He found the plaintiff’s complaint devoid of merit and
entered sanctions of $500 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Plaintiff
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order, which was denied by Judge
Greene on September 4, 1997.
We have reviewed the plaintiff’s filings before us, and also find them
meritless. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by
Judge Greene in his two orders discussed above. In addition, although the district
1
With the filing of this appeal, plaintiff has now engaged the work of nine federal
appellate judges, three federal district court judges, one federal magistrate judge, and
countless court personnel in his law suits against five Utah appellate judges, two Utah
supreme court justices, the governor of Utah, a United States senator, and two court
clerks in a futile effort to establish that his constitutional rights have been violated. See
Peterson v. McCleve, No. 96-4106, 1996 WL 606400 (10th Cir. Oct. 23, 1996); Peterson
v. Hatch, No. 96-4023, 1996 WL 421946 (10th Cir. July 26, 1996).
-2-
court has sanctioned Mr. Peterson pursuant to Rule 11, we do not consider that
sanction alone to be adequate in this case. “The court of appeals also has the
inherent power to impose sanctions that are necessary to regulate the docket,
promote judicial efficiency, and most importantly in this case, to deter frivolous
filings.” Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1437 (10th Cir. 1986). We
therefore find that a further sanction of $500 to be paid to the Clerk of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is appropriate in this case.
The Clerk of this court is hereby directed to issue an order requiring
Peterson to show cause why the above sanction should not be imposed. If
adequate response is not received by the Clerk within ten days from the filing of
this opinion, the sanctions shall be imposed. See id. The Clerk is further
instructed to return any future filings involving the same or similar allegations by
Mr. Peterson unless and until all outstanding sums due this court and the United
States District Court for the District of Utah have been paid in full.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-