FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 23, 2012
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
ALEX HUAQIANG LEO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 12-3100
v. (D.C. No. 2:12-CV-02168-CM-JPO)
(D. Kan.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT, DISTRICT OF KANSAS;
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Chief Judge;
J. THOMAS MARTEN, U.S. District
Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Alex HuaQiang Leo appeals the dismissal of his
complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court determined that Mr. Leo continues to
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
challenge orders in other federal cases concerning his discrimination claims
against Garmin International. See Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 431 F. App’x. 702
(10th Cir. 2011) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Garmin on age and
race discrimination claims); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 F. App’x. 737 (10th
Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of second suit as barred by res judicata and denial
of post-judgment motions); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464 F. App’x. 740 (10th
Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion); Leo v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., 464
F. App’x. 744 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of post-judgment motions and
remanding for district court to determine reasonable attorney’s fees as a sanction).
We agree with the district court’s disposition; Mr. Leo’s amended
complaint is an improper and repetitive attack on prior district court rulings, when
in fact our holdings are the law of the case, McWilliams v. Colorado, 121 F.3d
573, 574 (10th Cir. 1997), and the judicial defendants are protected by absolute
judicial immunity, Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-2-