Abdelsamed v. United States

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 31 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
AHMED ABDELSAMED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 02-1504
(D.C. No. 01-N-1774 (CBS))
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D. Colo.)
GREGORY JOHN HOCK;
STEVEN TAFFET; CHRISTINE
JOBIN; JEAN DUBOFSKY; STATE
OF COLORADO; COUNTY OF
EL PASO,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HARTZ , BALDOCK , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
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.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Plaintiff Ahmed Abdelsamed, appearing pro se , appeals the district court’s
order dismissing his complaint because he did not satisfy the pleading
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or state any legally cognizable claim. In his
105-page complaint (including its seven attached appendices), plaintiff alleges
a convoluted conspiracy by the United States of America; the State of Colorado;
the County of El Paso, Colorado; his prior trial and appellate attorneys, Steven
Taffet and Jean Dubofsky, his court-appointed conservator, Gregory John Hock;
and Mr. Hock’s counsel, Christine Jobin, to violate criminal laws, to obtain his
property by wrongful means, to violate his constitutional rights, and to hide their
alleged misdeeds from the courts. We affirm.
Plaintiff was awarded more than $1 million in a 1987 lawsuit against
his disability insurer. See generally Hock v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 876 P.2d
1242 (Colo. 1994). The damage award was ultimately deposited in federal court
via an interpleader action. In 1995, a federal district court approved the
disbursement of a portion of those funds to the United States and to the individual
defendants in this case in a manner consistent with previously negotiated
settlement agreements. The essence of plaintiff’s complaint is that these funds
were improperly disbursed.
In a comprehensive, thirty-seven page report adopted by the district court,
the magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for failure to
-2-
satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a) by providing the defendants with “fair
notice” of his claims “and the grounds upon which [they] rest[ ],” Conley v.
Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957), and for failure to state any legally cognizable
claim. The report, which is attached to the district court’s order of dismissal,
included a detailed recitation of the relevant factual background. See Abdelsamed
v. United States , No. Civ. A. 01-N-1774(CBS), 2002 WL 31409521, at *5-7
(D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2002) (unpublished disposition). The magistrate judge went to
great lengths to construe plaintiff’s complaint liberally, although the complaint is,
as the magistrate judge accurately found, “unintelligible,” and “vague and
virtually unreadable.” Id. at *10 (quotations omitted). The magistrate judge
reviewed all of the possible claims asserted by the plaintiff and articulated, point-
by-point, the many reasons why plaintiff’s allegations against the different
defendants were legally insufficient to state any claim. Id. at *11-22.
Further, the magistrate judge outlined plaintiff’s three previous lawsuits
arising from, or related to, the 1995 disbursement, all of which had previously
been dismissed because of plaintiff’s repeated failure to satisfy the requirements
of Rule 8(a). Id. at *7. See Abdelsamed v. United States , 31 Fed. Appx. 632(10th Cir. Mar. 27, 2002) (affirming dismissal and prohibiting plaintiff from
filing further actions related to these claims without explicit permission from the
district court), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1798 (2003); Abdelsamed v. United States ,
-3-
13 Fed. Appx. 883 (10th Cir. July 17, 2001) (affirming dismissal); Abdelsamed v.
Colorado , 6 Fed. Appx. 771 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 2001) (same).
We cannot improve upon the careful, thorough, and able evaluation
and analysis of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff has not articulated any
comprehensible argument why the district court erred in dismissing his complaint.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the
same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation
dated July 23, 2002. We note that, based on plaintiff’s history of filing vexatious
pro se pleadings, and in order to enforce the filing restrictions this court imposed
in Abdelsamed , 31 Fed. Appx. at 633, the district court enjoined plaintiff from
proceeding as a proponent of any claim in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado without representation of a licensed attorney, unless he
first obtains permission of that court to proceed pro se . We find no abuse of
the district court’s discretion in this regard.
Plaintiff’s motion to “Appoint an Independent Panel from a different
Circuit” is DENIED. His motions to file a corrected opening brief and to file
-4-
replies out-of-time are GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-5-