Woods v. Smith

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
JUN 18 1998
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DOUGLAS TYLER WOODS,
Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 97-1465
v. (D. Colorado)
CALVIN SMITH, (D.C. No. 97-D-2005)
Defendant - Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Douglas Tyler Woods, a state inmate appearing pro se, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 claim as legally frivolous or for failing
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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.
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and petitions this court for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because we
conclude that Mr. Woods has on three or more “prior occasions” brought actions
which were dismissed on the grounds of frivolousness or for failure to state a
claim, we deny him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss this appeal.
We take judicial notice that Mr. Woods has had three or more actions or
appeals in courts of the United States dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state
a claim. See Green v. Nottingham, 90 F.3d 415, 418 (10th Cir. 1996) (stating that
federal courts may take notice of judicial proceedings in other courts if they have
a direct relation to matters at issue). First, in Woods v. Hunter, No. 95-S-2548
(D. Colo. Oct. 10, 1995), the district court dismissed Woods’ civil rights
complaint as legally frivolous. 1 Second, in Woods v. Keenan, No. 95-S-2867 (D.
Colo. Dec. 8, 1995), the district court again dismissed Woods’ civil rights
complaint as legally frivolous. 2 Third, in Woods v. Province, No. 96-M-1066 (D.
Colo. July 23, 1996), the district court dismissed Woods’ civil rights complaint
for failure to state a claim. Finally, in the most recent case, Woods v. Smith, No.
97-D-2005 (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 1997), the district court dismissed Woods’ civil
rights complaint as legally frivolous or for failure to state a claim. There is thus
1
See Green, 90 F.3d at 420 (concluding that § 1915(g) applies to prisoner suits
dismissed prior to its enactment).
2
Ibid.
-2-
no question but that Mr. Woods has had actions dismissed as frivolous or for
failure to state a claim “on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Woods leave to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in
the future. For the reasons explained above, we also direct the Clerk of this Court
not to accept from Mr. Woods any further appeals of judgments in civil actions or
proceedings or any extraordinary writs in noncriminal matters, unless he pays the
filing fees established by our rules. The preceding directive does not apply to
appeals or petitions asserting that Mr. Woods is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Appeal DISMISSED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
3
In April 1998, we determined that Mr. Woods already had three “prior occasions”
and entered an order directing Mr. Woods to show cause why he should not be required to
pay the filing fee in full before proceeding in this matter. Mr. Woods ultimately
responded to our order by submitting a “Request in Lieu of Show of Cause,” asking that
we dismiss this appeal without prejudice. Based on our resolution of this case,
Mr. Woods’ “Request” is rendered moot, and we do not address it.
In addition, Mr. Woods has asked this court to order the state court to rule on his
pending motion pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 35(a). Such a request is inappropriate in this
case, and we do not address it.
-3-