[¶ 1] This mаtter came before the Court upon its own motion following a review of cases recently recommended to this Court's expedited dоcket. After a careful review of this matter, this Court concludes that the "Brief of Appellant[s]" should be stricken from this Court's files due to Appellаnt's repeated use of disrespectful language against the district court, this Court, and others. With the brief having been stricken, this Court concludes that thе order that is the subject of this appeal, the district court's "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary Judgment," should be summarily affirmed.
[¶ 2] Over one hundrеd years ago, this Court indicated that it would strike briefs that include disrespectful language. In Epgart v. Dunning,
We feel that it is due this court to refer to another matter before closing this opinion. Counsel for plaintiff in error has strayed far from the well-beaten path of good ethics. He takes occasion in his brief to criticize this court in disrespectful language for its recent decision in Burns v. C.B. & Q. Ry. Co.,14 Wyo. 498 ,85 Pac. 379 , and in which case he was counsel for the unsuccessful party. That decision has no bearing upon the questions in this case, and the reference to it with the language used excludes any idea of his act in so doing as being other than gratuitous. This court is not over-sensitive to criticism couched in respectful language, but when a brief is filеd, which carries with it language that is disrespectful, whether intentionally so or not, such act is inexcusable. It is due to the attorneys practicing at the bar of this court to say that it has never had occasion to refer to such conduct before. We have refrained from striking the brief from the files, but take this occasion to say that a repetition of such conduct will subject a party to the penalty at least of having his briеf stricken from the files.
See also Application of Stone,
[¶ 3] More recently, the Tenth Cireuit Court of Appeals has written:
Plaintiff's briefs on apрeal do little more than attempt to impugn (without basis) the integrity of the district judge. Such writings are intolerable, and we will not tolerate them. "Due to thе very nature of the court as an institution, it must and does have an inherent power to impose order, respect, decorum, silence, аnd compliance with lawful mandates. This power is organic, without need of a statute or rule for its definition, and it is necessary to the exerсise of all other powers." United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co.,11 F.3d 450 , 461 (6th Cir.1993). "If the complaint or other pleadings are abusive or contain offensive lаnguage, they may be stricken sua sponte under the inherent powers of the court." Phillips v. Carey,638 F.2d 207 , 208 (10th Cir.1981) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) ("Upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."). In Theriault v. Silber,579 F.2d 302 (5th Cir.1978), the court dismissed an appeal with prejudice because the appellant's notice of appeal containеd "vile and insulting references to the trial judge." Although recognizing the leniency typically given to pro se plaintiffs, the court stated: "This court simply will nоt allow liberal pleading rules and pro se practice to be a vehicle for abusive documents. Our pro se practice is а shield against the technical requirements of a past age; it is not a sword with which to insult a trial judge." Id. at 808. See also Carrigan v. California State Lеgislature,263 F.2d 560 , 564 (9th Cir.1959) ("Perhaps the easiest procedure in this case would be to dismiss the entire appeal as frivolous, and strike the briefs and plеadings filed by appellant ... as either scandalous, impertinent, seurrilous, and/or without relevancy.Undoubtedly such action would be justified by this Court.") A like rеsponse is called for in this case.
Garrett v. Selby, Connor, Maddux & Janer,
[¶ 4] In their brief, the Appellants repeatedly criticize, with disrespectful language, the district court judge who entered the "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary Judgment." Appellants also criticize, with disrespectful language, the district court judgе who formerly presided in this matter. In addition, Appellants criticize this Court, although those criticisms pale in comparison to the repeated criticisms of said district court judges. Leaving no stone unturned, Appellants also use their brief as a forum to cast aspersions at the Fedеral District Court judge who presided over Appellants' federal case. In addition, Appellants include innuendo about the potential fоr bribing judges. Last but not least, the Appellants criticize the members of a particular religion.
[T5] While this Court, like any court, must not be over-sensitive to сriticism, Appellants' repeated use of disrespectful language goes beyond the bounds of what this Court can be expected to tolerate. This Court concludes that Appellants' brief must be stricken from this Court's file. This Court further concludes that the district court's "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary Judgment" should be summarily affirmed. Long-Bell Lumber Co. v. Newell,
[T6] While a curious onlooker may be interested in the exact nature of Appellants' criticisms and disrespectful language, this Court will not sully this оrder, or this Court's files, with the language used by Appellants. Erwin v. Harris,
[T7] Finally, this Court finds that this matter should be referred to the State Bar of New Mexico. In the Briеf of Appellant(s)], Mr. Richard Gose informs this Court that he is still a member of the State Bar of New Mexico. According to this Court's research, Mr. Gose appears to be an inactive member of the State Bar of New Mexico. Due to Mr. Gose's conduct in being party to the filing of the Brief of Appellant[s], this Court finds that this matter should be referred to the State Bar of New Mexico, for whatever action it deems appropriаte. It is, therefore,
[T8] ORDERED that the "Brief of Appellant[s]" be stricken and removed from this Court's file; and it is further
[¶ 9] ORDERED that the "Reply Brief of Appellant[s]" received by this Court, although timely, shall not be filed, because that brief includes similar disrespectful language and because such brief is not proper following the striking of the "Brief of Appellant[s]"; and it is further
[T10] ORDERED that the District Court's May 28, 2009, "Order Granting Defendant's Converted Motion for Summary Judgment" be, and the same hereby is, affirmed; and it is further
[T11] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall transmit to the State Bar of New Mexico a copy of this "Order of Summary Affirmance" as well as copies of the "Brief of Appellant{s]" and the "Reply Brief of Appellant[s]," for whatever action that State Bar finds appropriate.
DATED this 30th day of October, 1009. BY THE COURT