F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 13 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JAMES L. BROOKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 00-3391
(D.C. No. 00-CV-2262-DES)
DEBORAH GRABER, Program (D. Kan.)
Manager II, NRC/Code Enforcement,
Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas;
LOWELL (NMI) NUNLEY,
Inspector/Code Enforcement, Unified
Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas;
UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF
WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS
CITY, KANSAS; CAROL
MARINOVICH, Mayor, Unified
Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas; SANDY
GONZALEZ, Inspector/Code
Enforcement, Unified Government of
Wyandotte County/Kansas City,
Kansas; KATHRYN H. VRATIL,
United States Federal District Judge,
Kansas City, Kansas, Federal
Courthouse; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR and McKAY , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior Circuit
Judge.
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
The Kansas district court dismissed James L. Brooks’ pro se suit for
damages for an alleged unconstitutional conspiracy against various Kansas City
defendants, the federal judge who ruled against Mr. Brooks in his previous
federal suit against those city defendants, see Brooks v. Sauceda , No. 00-3025,
2000 WL 1730892 (10th Cir. Nov. 22, 2000) (unpublished), and the Department
of Justice. See Brooks v. Graber , No. 00-2262-DES, 2000 WL 1679420 (D. Kan.
Nov. 6, 2000). Mr. Brooks’ docketing statement in this court set forth as grounds
for reversal generally that “[n]o merits of the case were litigated, no substance of
justice done.” Instead of specifically framing the issues and supporting his claims
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
-2-
of error with citation to pertinent legal authority as required by our federal rules
of appellate procedure, Mr. Brooks has filed over 100 pages principally
complaining about perceived injustices in unrelated cases from Iowa and the
Eighth Circuit and insisting that his interpretation of federal rules of civil
procedure is correct. He boasts that his “briefs” were “designed to prevent
federal judges from out-thinking” him. Appellant’s Reply Br. at 6.
After reading his “briefs,” we perceive one recognizable claim of error that
we have already rejected in Mr. Brooks’ prior appeal, see Brooks , 2000 WL
1730892 at *2: that the district court erred in denying his demand for automatic
entry of default against all defendants for having filed motions to dismiss instead
of answering his complaint. Mr. Brooks “giggle[s],” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 10,
at the suggestion that this states one of his issues, but it seems to be a fair
statement judging from his request for relief that we “sacrifice []our corruption”
and “declare default by all of the defendants.” Id. at 42-43.
Judges in three courts, including this one, have patiently attempted to
explain to Mr. Brooks his misinterpretation of the federal rules of civil procedure,
but he continues to assert with great confidence that federal judges are boneheads
while he is a legal scholar. We will spend no more judicial time or resources
addressing his frivolous claims. For substantially the same reasons stated in the
district court’s November 6, 2000 order, we conclude that Mr. Brooks’ demand
-3-
for automatic entry of default judgment and his motion for sanctions were
properly denied and that the city and federal defendants’ motions to dismiss were
properly granted.
Appellees suggest that Mr. Brooks should be sanctioned for filing a
frivolous appeal and for his contumacious behavior and use of threatening
language in his briefs. In his opening brief, after a diatribe demonstrating Mr.
Brooks’ complete lack of understanding of the doctrines of sovereign immunity
and res judicata, Mr. Brooks ended his remonstrations by stating that he has
sovereign immunity because it is his for the claiming, and that he
is looking forward to killing civil employees with impunity. He can
think of a long list of souls that should be “liberated.” He looks
forward to traveling from one side of town to the other unabated by
traffic regulations. He looks forward to permanently and legally
avoiding taxes, bankruptcy, foreclosure, breaking contracts. It’s
great to be King.
Appellant’s Br. at 55-57. Appellees took this language as a threat and reported
Mr. Brooks to the United States Marshall’s service for investigation. In his reply
brief, Mr. Brooks complained that appellees took his statements out of context
and opined that the Tenth Circuit does not object to the above-quoted language,
so why should the appellees? Appellant’s Reply Br. at 27. We make it clear to
Mr. Brooks that we do object to using obliquely-threatening language, and we do
not condone it.
-4-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-5-