Brett Andrew: House of Nelson v. Lewis T. Babcock; Gordon P. Gallagher

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
BRETT ANDREW: HOUSE OF
NELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LEWIS T. BABCOCK; GORDON P.
GALLAGHER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-1423
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03506-CMA)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
BRETT ANDREW NELSON, House of
Nelson,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GORDON GALLAGHER; LEWIS T.
BABCOCK,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 20-1426
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-03424-CMA)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 26, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1423 Document: 010110470722 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
_________________________________
Plaintiff filed two suits against United States District Judge Lewis T. Babcock
and United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, both of the District of
Colorado, taking issue with their disposition of two prior cases he filed in that
district. Appeal No. 20-1423 and its underlying district court case challenge the
disposition of Nelson v. Talbot, No. 20-cv-1053-LTB-GPG (D. Colo. May 7, 2020),
aff’d, No. 20-1424 (10th Cir. Jan. 13, 2021). Appeal No. 20-1426 and its underlying
district court case challenge the disposition of Nelson v. Walzl, No. 20-cv-1012-
LTB-GPG (D. Colo. May 7, 2020), aff’d, No. 20-1180 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 2020).
Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Judge Gallagher’s recommendations that the prior
cases be dismissed and Judge Babcock’s orders adopting those recommendations.
Pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court sua sponte
dismissed both of Plaintiff’s complaints as frivolous, malicious, and abusive.
Frivolous because the judges possessed absolute immunity from suit. And malicious
and abusive because the district court had advised Plaintiff on numerous occasions
that he may not sue judges for damages just because he disagrees with their orders or
rulings. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis in
both cases, but certified that any appeals would not be taken in good faith and
therefore preemptively denied any motion for IFP status on appeal. Finally, the
district court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why it should not impose filing
restrictions on him. Plaintiff failed to respond and thus the court imposed the
proposed filing restrictions.
Appellate Case: 20-1423 Document: 010110470722 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in their judicial
capacity except where they act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. See Mireles v.
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11–12 (1991). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that
the judges acted within their jurisdiction when they dismissed Plaintiff’s prior cases
and therefore absolute immunity applies. We further agree that Plaintiff’s insistence
on filing these actions, despite repeated warnings that he may not sue judges because
he disagrees with their rulings, warrants a finding that the suits are malicious and
abusive. Finally, “[f]ederal courts have the inherent power to regulate the activities
of abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions in appropriate
circumstances.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff
has identified no error in the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions.
Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose
in writing at length. We have thoroughly reviewed the records and Plaintiff’s
appellate briefs and discern no reversible error. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM in both cases for substantially the same reasons
set forth in the district court’s orders. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP
is DENIED.
Entered for the Court
Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 20-1423 Document: 010110470722 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --