Crownhart v. Graham

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 17, 2020
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
EARL CROWNHART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOE GRAHAM,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 20-1156
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00903-LTB)
(D. Colo.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*
Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court 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.
Pro se litigant, Earl Crownhart, appeals the district court’s dismissal of the
civil action he filed against Defendant Joe Graham in the District Court for the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 20-1156 Document: 010110362431 Date Filed: 06/17/2020 Page: 1

District of Colorado. The district court dismissed the suit without prejudice,
noting it has permanently enjoined Crownhart from filing pro se civil actions in
Colorado District Court without first obtaining permission from the court. See
Crownhart v. Suthers, et al., No. 13-cv-00959 (D. Colo. June 14, 2013); see also
In re Winslow, 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding federal courts have the
inherent power pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to impose filing restrictions on
abusive litigants). Because Crownhart did not comply with the terms of the
sanction order, the court dismissed his complaint.
A district court’s application of a previously-imposed filing restriction is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See In re Peterson, 338 F. App’x 763, 764
(10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished disposition cited solely for its persuasive value).
After reviewing the record, the appellate brief, and the applicable law, we affirm
the dismissal of Crownhart’s complaint because he has failed to show compliance
with the filing restrictions. Because Crownhart’s appeal is wholly frivolous, we
deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and remind Crownhart he
is responsible for the immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate
filing fee.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-2-
Appellate Case: 20-1156 Document: 010110362431 Date Filed: 06/17/2020 Page: 2