Glendora v. Sellers y , 57 F. App'x 378 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 31 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
GLENDORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACKIE SELLERS; NANTZ
RICKARD; PUBLIC ACCESS
COPORATION OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, and its officers and
board; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OFFICERS AND ADVISORS;
DARRYL ANDERSON; BROOKLYN No. 02-2083
COMMUNITY ACCESS D.C. No. CIV-00-1695-JP/LCS
TELEVISION; ONIDA COWARD (D. New Mexico)
MAYERS; MARILYN JACKSON;
DOMINGO MARTIN; OMAR
MALIK; NEICOLE A. GOURDINE;
MULTNOMAH COMMUNITY
TELEVISION; JUDY GRACE;
CHARLES F. DOLAN; JAMES L.
DOLAN; ROBERT S. LEMLE;
MARCK BUDILL; CHARLES A.
FORMA; MARYCE CUNNINGHAM;
BRIEN MCNEIL; DIANNE
BENNETT; AMY VAN HORN;
CHRISTINE SAVARINO; BRENDA
CHERRY; CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
CORPORATION; ROBERT
CALLAGY; and
SATTERLEE/STEPHENS/BURKE/
BURKE,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE , Circuit Judge, BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judge, and HARTZ ,
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.
Glendora, a New York resident appearing pro se , appeals the district court’s
judgments dismissing her complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper
venue. A group of appellees contend that plaintiff’s notice of appeal was untimely
as to them because they were dismissed on August 3, 2001, but plaintiff did not
file her notice of appeal until March 14, 2002. The district court, however, did not
dismiss the last remaining defendants until February 20, 2002. An order
adjudicating fewer than all claims of all parties is not appealable until the entire
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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-
action is ultimately decided. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Plaintiff’s notice of
appeal was timely filed.
Plaintiff filed an initial complaint and two amended complaints in the
District of New Mexico, alleging that the defendants violated her constitutional
rights and the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 531(e), by
refusing to telecast her television program on their public access channels. Most
of the defendants filed motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), alleging
lack of personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue. They presented evidence that
they were not residents of New Mexico, and did not operate or transact any
business in New Mexico, have property or employees in New Mexico, or otherwise
have contacts with New Mexico. Plaintiff did not allege any contacts or
wrongdoing of any of the defendants in New Mexico in her complaints or in
response to the motions to dismiss. She stated that she “chose New Mexico
federal court because New Mexico knows how to do public access [and] New York
and [the District of Columbia] do not.” R. Vol. II, Doc. 30, at 4 (all capitalization
deleted).
In a series of well-analyzed orders, the district court granted the defendants’
motions, ruling that there were insufficient minimum contacts between the
defendants and New Mexico, the forum state, to give it personal jurisdiction over
the defendants or to conclude it was the proper venue. A remaining group of
-3-
defendants did not answer or file motions to dismiss. Because plaintiff did not
allege any contacts or wrongdoing by these defendants in New Mexico and all of
these defendants had been served outside New Mexico, the district court ordered
plaintiff to show cause why these defendants should not also be dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction. Because plaintiff’s response failed to show why the
district court had jurisdiction over these defendants or why venue in the District of
New Mexico was proper, the district court dismissed these remaining defendants
as well.
Because plaintiff presented no colorable basis for the district court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the district court correctly
dismissed her complaints. We affirm the dismissals for substantially the same
reasons set forth by the district court.
Plaintiff also contends the district court abused its discretion by its
imposition of restrictions on her future case filings in the District of New Mexico.
A district court has the inherent power to regulate the activities of “litigants with
a documented lengthy history of vexatious, abusive actions, so long as the court
publishes guidelines about what the plaintiff must do to obtain court permission to
file an action, and the plaintiff is given notice and an opportunity to respond to the
restrictive order.” Werner v. Utah , 32 F.3d 1446, 1448 (10th Cir. 1994); see also
Tripati v. Beaman , 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989) (“A district court has power
-4-
under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who abuse the court system by
harassing their opponents.”).
Here, it is clear that plaintiff’s case filings have amounted to a pattern of
malicious, abusive, and frivolous litigation. In the case at hand, plaintiff’s
decision to file a suit against defendants in the District of New Mexico, when it is
patently clear that New Mexico has no relation to any of the claims or parties, can
only be characterized as abusive conduct. Indeed, plaintiff has a history of
misusing the courts by filing lawsuits claiming cable companies violated federal
law by not telecasting her television program. See, e.g., Glendora v. Anderson ,
No. 02-15608, 2002 WL 31102957 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2002); Glendora v. Levin ,
No. 01-1776, 2001 WL 1587415 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2001). Plaintiff also has filed
at least fifteen petitions with the Supreme Court, which eventually denied her
authorization to proceed in forma pauperis based on its finding that her petitions
were frivolous. See Glendora v. Porzio , 523 U.S. 206 (1998); Glendora v.
DiPaola , 522 U.S. 965 (1997).
It is also clear from the record that the district court complied with due
process requirements by providing plaintiff with notice of the proposed filing
restrictions and an opportunity to respond. We therefore find no abuse of
discretion on the part of the district court in imposing those restrictions.
-5-
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-6-