Webb v. Caldwell, 1:15-cv-00059

David Webb (pro se) sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and filed a proposed complaint and later a Second Amended Complaint alleging conspiracy, trespass-related civil-rights violations, and libel/slander against Ogden City actors.
Magistrate Judge Pead recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim, denial of IFP, and that Webb be ordered to show cause why he should not be placed on a restricted-filers list.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation without first addressing whether Webb’s amended complaint would be futile; the Tenth Circuit remanded to permit that futility inquiry.
On remand the district court reviewed Webb’s Second Amended Complaint and concluded the added allegations were conclusory, lacked facts identifying false statements or actionable wrongdoing, and did not cure prior deficiencies.
The court held amendment would be futile, denied leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered narrowly tailored filing restrictions on Webb’s future IFP civil filings (pre-review by magistrate and chief judge) while exempting paid filings and those with counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Webb's proposed Second Amended Complaint should be permitted or is futile	Webb contended new factual and legal claims (conspiracy, §1343, libel/slander) cured deficiencies	Defendants argued the new allegations remained conclusory, unsupported, and not legally actionable	Court: Amendment would be futile; denies leave to amend and dismisses with prejudice
Whether Webb should be placed on the District of Utah restricted-filers list	Webb challenged impartiality of magistrate and contested restrictions	Court relied on Webb’s extensive abusive and frivolous filing history and prior IFP abuses	Court: Imposes narrow pre-filing IFP review and return-without-filing procedure; exempts paid filings and counsel-represented cases

Buchheit v. Green, 705 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir.) (IFP dismissal standards under § 1915)
Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (§ 1915(e) uses Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (IFP dismissal of baseless factual allegations)
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.) (requirements for filing restrictions on abusive litigants)
Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass’n., 469 F.3d 1340 (10th Cir.) (courts’ inherent power to regulate abusive litigants)
Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir.) (authority to enter injunctions restricting filings)
Werner v. State of Utah, 32 F.3d 1446 (10th Cir.) (IFP abuse can justify filing restrictions)
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir.) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415 (10th Cir.) (judicial notice of proceedings in other courts)
Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) (pro se pleading standards)