Lornes v. Attorney Regulation Counsel
17-1098
10th Cir.Nov 30, 2017Background
- Plaintiff William Lee Lornes is a pro se prisoner with a long history of dismissed filings in the District of Colorado; the district court in Hernandez imposed pre-filing restrictions on him after reviewing many of his prior cases.
- The Hernandez order required Lornes to seek leave from the clerk before filing any new pro se action, to list all prior District of Colorado suits and their status, to state the legal issues he proposed to raise and whether they had been raised before, and to submit the proposed pleading.
- Lornes filed at least two new actions without complying with the Hernandez restrictions; each district-court action was dismissed for failure to follow the filing requirements, and the court denied in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal and certified the appeals as not taken in good faith.
- Lornes appealed both dismissals to the Tenth Circuit (consolidated for decision here), and submitted pro se briefing that the court found to be disorganized and not challenging the district court’s procedural rulings.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the appeals for frivolousness under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and considered the applicable abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal sanctions, but concluded the briefs contained no nonfrivolous argument supporting reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lornes’ appeals are frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B) | Lornes filed pro se briefs alleging various grievances (some unrelated), implicitly contesting dismissal | District court’s dismissal was proper because Lornes failed to follow Hernandez filing restrictions; appeals raise no cognizable error | Appeals are frivolous and dismissed |
| Whether IFP status should be granted on appeal | Lornes requested IFP status to proceed without prepayment of fees | The filings do not present reasoned, nonfrivolous arguments meriting IFP | IFP denied for both appeals; fees remain due |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing for noncompliance with filing restrictions | Lornes implicitly contends dismissal was wrongful (but does not present coherent challenge) | District court’s imposition and enforcement of filing restrictions were proper given history of frivolous prosecutions | No abuse of discretion shown; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the appellate briefs warrant appellate review despite procedural defects | Lornes submitted supplemental and nonconforming briefs raising assorted allegations | Nonconforming, conclusory, and off-topic briefing fails to identify legal error | Briefs do not present any nonfrivolous argument; appellate review denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for dismissal sanctions)
- Olson v. Coleman, 997 F.2d 726 (10th Cir. 1993) (definition of frivolous appeal)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings construed liberally)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (IFP as privileged, promotes equal treatment)
- Treff v. Galetka, 74 F.3d 191 (10th Cir. 1996) (IFP is a privilege, not a right)
- Watkins v. Leyba, 543 F.3d 624 (10th Cir. 2008) (need for reasoned, nonfrivolous appellate argument to obtain IFP)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (standards for denying IFP where appeals lack nonfrivolous argument)