F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 3 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES E. STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-6283
(D.C. No. 96-CV-1636)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
(W.D. Okla.)
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION,
sued as U.S. Department of Justice;
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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. Stewart is a pro se litigator. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), he
appeals from an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and
placing restrictions upon his filing of future. We affirm the judgment of the
district court.
This is the fourth action by plaintiff or his company, all of which arise out
of the same operative facts. The district court accurately set forth the history of
Mr. Stewart's prior litigation in its order granting summary judgment.
In response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court
determined the doctrine of res judicata bars the present action by Mr. Stewart.
The district court further expressed its concern over Mr. Stewart's "continuing
abuse of the judicial system" and imposed future filing restrictions upon Mr.
Stewart.
Mr. Stewart appeals the judgment of the district court framing the issues as
follows:
1. "Is district court authorized to grant summary judgment to a movant and
respondent to a Rule 56 cross motion who does not meet the standard set forth in
-2-
Rule 56 as interpreted by the Supreme Court and by the Tenth Circuit, as well as
others?"
2. "Is district court authorized to grant motion for summary judgment
against a collateral attack upon void judgments as being a res judicata bar while
disregarding all relevant law and fact to the contrary?"
3. "Is preclusion justified under Rule 11 when a party has been unjustly
denied the right to trial by jury?"
4. "May the district court ignore evidence and law as to the tax liability of
an Oklahoma taxpayer and allow the deductions to an Oklahoma corporation
which is under suspension?"
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying
the same legal standard as the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) Frandsen
v. Westinghouse Corp., 46 F.3d 975, 977 (10th Cir. 1995). We also review de
novo a district court's conclusions of law as to the applicability of res judicata.
Id.
-3-
Mr. Stewart chooses to ignore the controlling law. Quite simply, the law
states once a final judgment is entered, the parties are precluded from relitigating
the issues that were decided or the issues that could have been raised in the earlier
action. Id. at 978. In short, all litigation must eventually come to an end. A
party is not entitled to relitigate a matter until the desired result is achieved. The
lawful end of the present litigation occurred some years past. Accordingly, the
order of the district court granting defendants' motion for summary judgment is
AFFIRMED.
After granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the district
court entered an order imposing filing restrictions on Mr. Stewart. The order
requires the clerk of the court to refer Mr. Stewart's future complaints, if any, to a
magistrate judge for review. If the magistrate judge determines the complaint is
without merit, duplicative or frivolous, the complaint will be transferred to the
chief judge of the district court for further review. Only with the consent of the
chief judge may Mr. Stewart file the complaint.
A litigant has no absolute or unconditional right of access to the courts,
particularly with regard to frivolous or vexatious actions. See Tripati v. Beaman,
878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). In Tripati, this court held a district court
-4-
may place appropriate restrictions on litigants with a history of abusive or
frivolous filings. Id. at 352-53. Before imposing restrictions on a litigant, the
district court must set forth the litigant's history of abusive filing activities,
provide some guidance as to what the litigant must do to obtain the court's
permission to file an action, and give the litigant notice and opportunity to
respond. Id. at 353-54. In this case, the district court detailed Mr. Stewart's
litigation history and detailed the review procedure Mr. Stewart must follow to
file future actions. Since the district court imposed these restrictions in the
context of cross-motions for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 11, the notice
and opportunity requirement was satisfied. See Tripati, 878 F.2d at 354 (in-
person district court hearing not required). We AFFIRM the district court's
imposition of future filing restrictions on Mr. Stewart.
The written order of the district court is thorough, well written, clear, and
accurate. The order is fully supported by the record on appeal. This judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth
therein. A copy of the district court's order is attached hereto.
-5-
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-6-
Attachment not available electronically.
-7-